Summarize URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context: 'Lean mode — no bundle stored' clarifies lack of persistent side effects, and the return shape is described. It doesn't mention rate limits or error handling, but these are less critical for a read-only fetch.

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 appropriately sized: first sentence states the core function, then usage guidance, return format, and example prompts. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given two parameters fully explained in the schema, annotations covering read-only and open-world, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains when to use it, what it returns, and how to formulate prompts. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, with both 'url' and 'max_tokens' well-documented. The description provides example prompts that illustrate usage but adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific action ('Fetch a public HTTPS URL') and output ('prose summary with key points'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools url.extract and url.qa. It also mentions the return structure.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use when you need a condensed understanding of a web page') and provides direct alternatives: 'For raw text, use url.extract. For asking a specific question about a page, use url.qa.' This is clear and actionable.

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