x402_summarize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions the cost ($0.02 USDC/call), which is a behavioral trait, but it does not disclose the output format, error handling, or any side effects. It doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation or if it might have side effects (e.g., fetching and storing content). This is a significant gap.

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 a single, concise sentence that includes the core function and the cost. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word serves a purpose. There is no unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with only one parameter, and the schema covers that parameter. However, the description is extremely terse and lacks important context. It does not explain what the summary looks like (e.g., length, format, whether it's a text string or structured data), nor does it mention any limitations (e.g., paywalled articles, language support). Without an output schema or annotations, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 describes the single parameter 'url' as 'Article URL', and the schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds nothing beyond this; it merely states the purpose without elaborating on the parameter's syntax or expected format. Since the schema already documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies, and the description provides no additional value.

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's function: generating an AI summary of any article URL. It includes the specific verb 'summarize' and the resource 'article URL', making the purpose unambiguous. It also mentions the cost, which is a useful differentiator. Though it doesn't explicitly compare with siblings, the intent is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools (e.g., x402_read for full text). The agent is left to infer that this is for summaries, but no explicit direction is given.

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