read_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output (article text, title, metadata) but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior for non-article URLs. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise, with two sentences and a parameter line. It is front-loaded with the purpose, contains no redundant information, and every sentence adds 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists (reducing need to describe return values). The description covers the key aspects: what it does, the primary output, and the input. It could mention support for different URL types or content extraction limitations, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the single parameter 'url' is described as 'URL to read content from' in the description, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's type. While more detail (e.g., supported protocols, encoding) would be beneficial, the description compensates adequately for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Read and extract') and defines the resource ('clean text content from any URL'). It also lists the return type (article text, title, metadata), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'web_scrape' or 'scrape_meta_tags' which may return raw HTML or specific meta tags.

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 description implies usage for extracting clean text from URLs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Given the sibling list includes many similar tools, more explicit guidance would improve clarity, but the current phrasing is sufficient for most use cases.

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