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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only names a header and a risk category. It does not say whether the tool fetches a URL, parses a supplied header value, requires network access, or how it determines leakage risk.

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 text is short, but it is a fragment rather than an informative description. It front-loads the topic but omits the necessary verb and parameter guidance, so its brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits how to invoke the tool and what q should contain. The output schema may cover return values, but the agent still cannot reliably construct a call.

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 only parameter is q (string, default ''), with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions q or what input it expects — URL, domain, or raw header value — so an agent cannot know what to pass.

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 identifies the subject matter — the Referrer-Policy header and URL leakage risk — so an agent can tell it is related to referrer policy assessment. However, it is a noun phrase with no action verb, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling policy-related tools like permissions_pol.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no scenarios, exclusions, or sibling-tool references. The only implicit signal is that it relates to referrer policy, which is not enough for an agent to choose it confidently.

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