Content Distribution Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about x402 utility pricing, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like network usage or side effects beyond annotations.

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 clearly states the purpose, and the second adds relevant context about the tool family and pricing. No unnecessary words, though the second sentence could be more specific to the tool.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should more fully explain what the tool returns. It mentions channels but not the structure or format of the summary. The x402 pricing note is useful, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough for a tool that aggregates multiple data sources.

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 schema fully documents parameters (url, timeout). The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters, so baseline score of 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 'summarizes how a site distributes content across Open Graph, feeds, socials, and crawl surface', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like util_open_graph and util_feed_discover by combining multiple channels, but lacks detail on what the summary includes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not to use it or provide comparisons to sibling tools like util_open_graph or util_feed_discover, which could be used individually for similar purposes.

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