textokit_source_bounded_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral fact an agent must know: this is a paid call at 0.002 USDC via x402 on Base from the caller's wallet, with a free sample alternative. It omits failure modes, what happens if no verifiable quotes are found, rate limits, and the shape of the returned evidence, which are significant gaps for a metered 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded and the pricing/alternative details following. Every clause earns its place.

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 and no annotations, so the description is the only place an agent can learn about cost and payment mechanics, which it does cover. It still leaves the return payload (how quotes/evidence are presented) and error behavior unexplained, which matters for a paid, evidence-verified endpoint.

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%, including the 1–4000 character bound and the es/en enum with a stated default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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 and resource ('Summarize text') plus a distinguishing qualifier ('verified quotes / evidence-bound summary'), which separates it from a generic summarizer. It does not explicitly contrast with any sibling beyond pointing at the free sample, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 one piece of routing guidance is the pointer to textokit_sample for a free trial, which is genuinely useful for a paid tool. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance on constraints such as maximum input size or when the quote requirement will fail.

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