AgentRead — bounded web context

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses that the tool returns a 'fixed' example, meaning static/deterministic behavior, which adds value beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It also notes it is 'free,' though this is ambiguous. No contradiction with annotations exists. The behavioral context is minimal but not absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It uses several adjectives to convey the nature of the tool without unnecessary detail, making it appropriately sized and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates that the tool returns a static example. It does not describe the example's structure, but given the tool's simplicity and demo-like nature, this is not a major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and no gaps exist in this dimension.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool provides a 'fixed example of extracted web context,' which gives a general idea of its function as a static sample/demo. However, it lacks a clear verb and resource, and does not differentiate it from the sibling tools extract_html or read_web. It is more than a tautology but remains vague about the actual operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It does not state any context or conditions for selecting this example tool over extract_html or read_web. The description implies it is a demo/sample, but this is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already supply read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: it never fetches the URL and treats source fields as untrusted. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core behavior and boundary, the second adds a security caveat. Every word is functional and the description is appropriately front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Annotations and schema carry the safety and parameter details, but without an output schema the description leaves the return value unstated. It also lacks explicit when-to-use guidance relative to its siblings. The mode parameter's schema description hints at output, but the top-level description is thinner than needed for a 5-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60%, and the description's 'no URL fetch' is redundant with the url parameter's 'never fetched' schema text. It does not clarify html, mode, query, or max_chars beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither compensates for uncovered parameters nor adds meaningful new parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation ('HTML parsing') with a key boundary ('no URL fetch'), which distinguishes it from the sibling read_web. It doesn't explicitly name the deliverable, but the verb+resource+constraint is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'No URL fetch' implies use cases where HTML is already provided rather than fetched, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool versus read_web or example, and offers no exclusions. Usage context is indirect rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only carry openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds substantial behavioral context: the 0.01 USDC x402 cost, the two-phase flow ('Without payment_signature returns payment instructions'), and the security directive to sign locally and never submit a private key. This meaningfully exceeds the structured fields and explains why readOnlyHint=false despite being a fetch.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with zero filler: purpose and cost in sentence one, conditional flow in sentence two, security constraint in sentence three. The most important operational facts (cost, payment requirement, key safety) are front-loaded ahead of any optional detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The payment flow and security posture are covered, and the mode field's schema description hints at the output shape (provenance, passages). However, with no output schema present, the description never states what the default 'full' response contains, what error conditions look like, or what happens after a valid payment_signature is supplied. A paid tool with a two-phase handshake warrants a bit more coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents url, mode, query, and payment_signature. The description adds value by explaining the conditional role of payment_signature — that omitting it triggers a payment-instructions response rather than the fetched content. This is semantic information the schema's field description ('Base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE produced by your wallet adapter') does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch public static web context.' The word 'context' (rather than raw HTML) plus the mode field's mention of provenance and passages implies a processed result, which distinguishes it from the sibling extract_html. However, it never explicitly names the sibling or states the boundary, so an agent must infer the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over extract_html or example. The description explains the payment flow but not the selection criteria — e.g., when static context suffices versus when raw HTML extraction is needed. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema and name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.