qm_data_summarize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: cost ($0.01 USDC on Base), two-phase payment behavior, robots.txt enforcement with refusal before any charge, and the security posture ("never pays and never touches private keys"). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a paid tool.

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 purpose and price, then the two-phase flow, then output and safety notes, ending with a concrete example. It is dense but every sentence carries information; slightly long, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover returns — and it does ("first call returns payment_required; second call with payment returns the summary"). Combined with pricing, payment flow, and refusal semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 both url and payment are already documented in detail in the schema, including the base64 x402 payload format. The description reinforces the payment semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Webpage summary") plus the exact output shape ("Cleaned-text excerpt plus key sentences"). It is clearly distinguishable from data siblings like qm_data_readability, qm_data_wiki, or qm_data_httpcheck, which do not summarize.

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 two-phase invocation flow is spelled out precisely (first call with url only, then re-call with the base64 payment payload), which is strong how-to guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives routing against the many sibling data tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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