Readmd

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

The annotations cover critical safety signals like readOnlyHint and destructiveHint. The description adds crucial behavioral context regarding the *content* retrieved (e.g., pricing, HTTP endpoints, docs), which is highly valuable for operational transparency.

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 definition is highly concise and front-loaded. It achieves maximum information density in a single, efficient sentence without any unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the tool is a simple, zero-parameter information provider, the description is maximally complete, providing a full mental model of what the agent can expect upon invocation.

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?

Since the tool has zero parameters, the baseline score is high. The description confirms that the tool operates as a simple information retrieval function requiring no user input.

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 is highly specific, clearly stating that the tool provides metadata regarding the service's functionality, pricing, and documentation links. This distinguishes it well from the sibling tools which focus on content (reading/preview).

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?

The description establishes the tool's explicit context—general information about the platform. While it does not explicitly define 'when not to use it,' the clear scope of the information provided makes usage obvious for an AI agent.

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context the annotations can't express — the cost model (free vs $0.001) and the fact that output is truncated to 500 characters, which is critical to know before relying on it for extraction. It stops short of describing rate limits or fetch failure behavior.

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, zero filler, with the cost/limitation signal ('Free') front-loaded and the alternative named immediately after the capability. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and the truncation boundary, which is exactly what an agent needs to judge whether the preview suffices. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Single `url` parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Public http(s) URL', 4–2048 chars), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description contributes nothing parameter-specific beyond implying a public URL, which lands at the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetches a URL) plus the exact return shape: title, metadata, outline, word/token counts, and the first 500 characters of Markdown. It also names the sibling it is not (read_url for full text), so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this free preview, use read_url (paid, with a concrete price) when the full text is needed. That is a clear selection rule. It doesn't address the read_urls batch sibling, but the core either/or decision is spelled out.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive): robots.txt is respected, non-HTML types are supported, and the failure policy is explicit — unreachable targets, 4xx/5xx, robots disallow, PDFs/images and JS-only pages error out and are not charged. Pricing and the x402 payment flow, including the no-wallet fallback, are fully disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded correctly, with purpose and output described first. But it is one dense run-on paragraph, and the pricing statement is duplicated ('$0.001 per page' followed by '$0.001 USDC per call via x402'), plus the options list echoes the schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: Markdown structure, metadata fields, outline, word count, token estimate, truncation flag and optional chunks/links. Failure modes and billing conditions complete the picture an agent needs before paying for a call.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema with default values and semantics. The description's 'Options:' sentence largely restates those defaults rather than adding new meaning; it contributes cost/truncation context but no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Read a web page as clean Markdown for an LLM', and the body specifies extraction behavior and output format. It never names the siblings (read_urls, preview_url) to draw the single-vs-batch or preview-vs-full distinction, so the boundary is left implicit.

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?

Usage guidance is present at the parameter level ('mode=full for the whole page', 'links=false to save tokens', 'chunk_tokens to get RAG-ready chunks'), which implies when to pick which option. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over read_urls or preview_url, which is the main selection question given the sibling set.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses pricing ($0.005/call, ~$0.0005/page), that billing only occurs if at least one URL succeeds, and the x402 USDC payment path. It also tells the agent what happens without a wallet — it returns payment terms and a paid HTTP URL instead of content — which is exactly the failure-mode disclosure an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and efficiently dense, but the cost is stated twice in near-identical terms ("$0.005 per call ... Charged only if at least one URL is read successfully" then "Costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 (charged only on success)"). One of those sentences could be merged.

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?

With 7 params fully documented in the schema and no output schema, the description carries only the burden of behavior and cost, both of which it covers well, including the partial-failure model. The one gap is no relative positioning against read_url/preview_url siblings, which for a 7-param batch tool is a minor but real omission.

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 description coverage is 100%, so mode, links, images, max_tokens, chunk_tokens, include_links and urls are all documented in the schema. The description only contributes "in parallel" and "per-URL ok/error", which is marginal added meaning over the structured fields.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource with scope ("Read up to 10 web pages as clean Markdown in one call, in parallel") and adds the per-URL ok/error shape. It equates itself to the /v1/read HTTP endpoint rather than differentiating from the sibling tool read_url, so an agent still has to infer the single-vs-batch split.

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?

Batch usage is implied by "in one call, in parallel" and the 10-URL cap, but there is no explicit "use read_urls when you have multiple URLs, read_url for one" guidance despite read_url being a sibling. No prerequisites or exclusions beyond the payment note.

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