summarise_webpage

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 discloses a behavioral trait ('Costs 100 sats via Lightning') and the output structure. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or that the operation is read-only, leaving some gaps.

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 concise with two sentences. The first sentence conveys the core action and returns; the second adds cost and use cases. Every sentence is valuable with no waste.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of return fields (title, summary, key points, etc.) and mentions cost. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output and requirements.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'url' parameter. The description adds contextual value by mentioning the output fields and cost, but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Summarize any web page by URL' and enumerates the output fields (title, summary, key points, etc.), making the tool's purpose specific and distinct from siblings like analyse_image or explain_code.

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 explicitly lists recommended use cases ('Use for: articles, blogs, documentation, product pages, news'), providing good context. However, it does not mention when not to use or compare to alternatives, missing a bit of guidance.

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