get_og_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important trait: the tool costs $0.001 USDC via x402, indicating a paid operation. However, it does not mention network requests, required permissions, error conditions, or output format. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no 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 extremely concise, using two short sentences to convey the function, category, and pricing. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. While it could be more informative, the size is appropriate for the minimal content it presents.

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 description is incomplete for a tool that requires payment and likely a URL parameter. It lacks information about required inputs (e.g., URL), expected output, failure modes, or why this tool should be preferred over similar siblings like scrape_meta_tags. The presence of pricing adds some context but does not compensate for the absence of usage and output details.

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 input schema has a generic 'params' object with the description 'Tool parameters as JSON object', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric when schema coverage is high. However, the generic schema does not convey that a URL is likely required, leaving a gap in parameter semantics.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource: 'get og metadata' (Open Graph metadata). It adds a context label 'Web & SEO tool', which clarifies its domain. However, it does not differentiate it from similar sibling tools like scrape_meta_tags or read_url, so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for reading Open Graph tags from a specific URL, nor does it reference any sibling tools or exclusions. The only added context is the cost, which is not usage guidance.

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