URL → clean text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses output contents (title, language, word count) and the $0.02 USDC cost, but it does not mention failure modes, handling of non-article pages, JavaScript-dependent pages, rate limits, or response format details.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: behavior and output, use case, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no 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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential calling context: what it returns, how it can be formatted, why to use it, and the financial cost. It could be more complete by describing the exact return shape, but it is still sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'text or Markdown' format choice and the notion of truncated output, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's already-clear parameter descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a web page and return the main article text without navigation, ads or boilerplate.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like farm_metadata or farm_jsonld by emphasizing cleaned body text, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 states a clear intended use: 'Use this to feed a page into a model or a RAG index.' This gives an agent a concrete signal for when to select this tool, but it does not mention when not to use it or suggest an alternative sibling.

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