textokit_url_text

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical behavioral trait: this is a paid call (0.001 USDC, x402 on Base, charged to the caller's wallet), plus a free sampling path. It omits failure modes, wallet/auth prerequisites in detail, and any rate-limit or error behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 short sentences with zero filler: what it returns, what it costs, and the free alternative. The core capability is front-loaded and the pricing caveat follows immediately.

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 3-parameter, fully-described schema with no output schema, an agent has enough to call it: it knows the input is a public HTTPS URL and that output is readable text, optionally truncated. The cost model is disclosed, though the shape of the returned payload (beyond 'readable text') and the maxChars truncation consequence are not spelled out.

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 url, format enum, and maxChars bounds are already fully documented in structured fields. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a concrete operation and resource: extracting readable text from a public page. It distinguishes itself from textokit_sample by framing that one as the free trial, but it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling textokit_web_read, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Usage is implied (you want readable text from a public page) and the description does route cost-sensitive agents to the free sample first. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over textokit_web_read or textokit_source_bounded_summary, so the main sibling ambiguity is left unresolved.

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