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

Without annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that the check is performed from the server location and targets major websites, but omits details such as timeout behavior, whether requests are HTTP/HTTPS, and how results are reported.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a concise usage rationale. No wasted wording.

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 simple zero-parameter tool, the description explains the action and broad purpose, but it does not clarify the output shape or define the 'etc.' set of websites. With no annotations or output schema, those gaps leave the agent with only moderate completeness.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning to add or clarify.

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 and resource: checking accessibility of major websites from the server location, with examples and a censorship-detection purpose. It is clear, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as check_service_access or ping_host.

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 a clear usage context—censorship and network restriction detection—so an agent knows why to invoke it. It does not state when to prefer it over sibling tools like check_service_access or ping_host, so no exclusions or explicit alternatives are provided.

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