read_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the full safety profile. The description adds non-redundant value by disclosing the return shape ('structured text ready for analysis'), which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of describing failure modes (paywalls, non-HTML content, fetch errors), which would be useful for a web-fetch 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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Extract clean text content from any URL'), followed by the trigger and the return value in descending order of importance.

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 single-purpose fetch tool with a fully-covered schema and complete annotations, the definition covers action, trigger, and output format. The only residual gap is behavior on un-fetchable URLs (auth walls, non-text content), which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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 both parameters (url, userId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format detail, validation rules, or clarification about the optional tracking parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract clean text content from any URL.' The scope ('any URL') and output ('clean text content') are immediately clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling, but no sibling in the list performs URL fetching, so the omission is low-cost.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use trigger: 'when a user shares a link (competitor site, news article, client brief, trend report) and wants to cross-reference it against Fodda knowledge graphs.' The examples are helpful context. It lacks any when-NOT-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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