Page Metadata ($0.01)

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 adds the cost of $0.01 USDC, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the extracted fields, and includes cost information. Every word contributes value with no repetition or unnecessary details.

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's simplicity, the description sufficiently explains what metadata is extracted and the cost. There is no output schema, so the description serves as the primary source of return value information. It covers all essential aspects for a lightweight extraction 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 100% with a single 'url' parameter described as 'Page URL'. The description adds 'any URL' but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool extracts specific metadata (title, description, OpenGraph image, favicon, canonical) from any URL, with a clear verb 'extract' and resource 'URL'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_text and site_audit by focusing on metadata extraction.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_text or site_audit. It implies usage for link previews and summaries but lacks exclusionary criteria or context for selection.

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