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

The lone readOnlyHint annotation is corroborated by 'Read-only.' Beyond that, the description discloses non-obvious behavior annotations cannot: redirects are NOT followed by default (so 301/503 answers stay visible), up to 5 hops if enabled, the probe egresses from the Ankra platform, and private/internal CIDRs are blocked.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and return payload come first, then differentiators and constraints. Every sentence carries information (redirect policy, host_header, blocked ranges), with no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies return contents (status code, latency, headers, body snippet, TLS subject/issuer/expiry/verification), and it covers constraints, redirect policy, and alternatives. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics: follow_redirects default-off behavior and 5-hop cap, and host_header's dual role as virtual-host selector and TLS SNI. It stops short of covering method/timeout beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource (probe an HTTP/HTTPS endpoint) and enumerates exactly what it reports: status code, latency, headers, body snippet, TLS certificate details. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling web_fetch and routes in-cluster questions to get_services/get_ingresses/get_pods.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('check whether an endpoint is up, what certificate it serves, or why users see errors') and when-not (private/internal ranges blocked, use get_services/get_ingresses/get_pods instead). Names the alternative tool web_fetch and the conditions selecting it: plain http://, literal public IPs, non-standard ports.

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