read_url

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses caching behavior (with 'fresh' parameter), stripping of navigation/boilerplate, and output structure. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be useful for a read 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?

Three sentences: first covers purpose and output, second gives usage guidance, third is a branding note. Front-loaded and succinct, though the last sentence adds little value.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides purpose, output format, caching behavior, and usage comparison. Missing details on error handling or accessibility, but overall adequate.

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?

Both parameters have 100% schema coverage, which already describes them. The description adds context for 'fresh' (force a fresh fetch instead of cached) and implies the URL must be public, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'any public web page', and the output format 'clean AIDocument: Markdown plus title, description, and structure'. It distinguishes from a raw HTTP fetch by highlighting benefits.

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?

Explicitly recommends using this tool over a raw HTTP fetch when needing web page content, citing cleaner and lower-token output. However, it does not specify when not to use it (e.g., for non-public pages or dynamic content).

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