UpLane Website Uptime Checker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description stays consistent with them while adding genuinely useful context: measurements come from Cloudflare's edge (so results reflect that vantage point), redirect chains are followed, and no API key is needed. It stops short of stating timeouts, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core purpose first and the return payload enumerated after. The long parenthetical list of security headers is dense but every item is informative rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: status, latency, redirects, content info, server header, security headers. What remains unaddressed is failure behavior (unreachable host, timeout) and any output shape.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with a format example. The description adds no syntax or edge-case detail (e.g., whether bare domains are accepted or non-http schemes rejected), so the schema baseline of 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check right now whether a website/URL is up', then enumerates the exact measurements returned. 'Right now' implicitly distinguishes this point-in-time check from start_uptime_monitor, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Check right now' implies a one-off check versus the monitoring sibling, and 'Free, no key' tells the agent there is no auth prerequisite. However, it never states when to prefer check_websites (batch) or start_uptime_monitor (ongoing), leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the result fields (up/down, HTTP status, response time), states the parallelism behavior, and explicitly notes 'Free, no key.' It does not cover timeout/error behavior or redirect handling, but the key operational facts are present.

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 core action, scope, and return values. Every clause adds useful information 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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-value summary and access requirement. It falls short only on edge-case behavior such as invalid URLs, timeouts, or partial failures.

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 single 'urls' parameter is partly clarified by the description ('up to 10 URLs', checked in parallel), but the schema already enforces maxItems=10 and the array type. The description does not add URL format requirements or clarify invalid-input behavior, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check ... URLs') plus a clear scope ('up to 10 URLs in parallel'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling check_website. An agent can tell immediately that this is the batch URL-checking tool.

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 batch limit and parallel checking imply usage for checking multiple URLs at once, but the description never explicitly says when to use this instead of check_website or start_uptime_monitor. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context — checks run every ~5 minutes, alerts go to Slack/Discord/Telegram, and a public status page is created (a privacy-relevant detail). However, it never says whether this sets up a persistent recurring job on the server, what the call returns (e.g., a monitor ID or status page URL), how to stop it, or that a pro key is required for more than 3 URLs.

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 core capability and limits are front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the pricing/upgrade detail relegated to a second sentence. The promotional content is slightly noisy but does convey the practical URL cap and key source, so it largely earns its place.

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 5-parameter mutation-style setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and quota but leaves the agent without a picture of the lifecycle: whether monitors persist, what is returned, or how they are later managed. Adequate, but with clear gaps for something that seeds a background service.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the description usefully fills gaps: it explains the 3-URL ceiling (urls), enumerates the accepted alert destinations (webhook), and gives the pro_key format ('UP-...') and where to obtain it — none of which is documented in the schema for pro_key. It does not explain chat_id requirements for Telegram beyond what the schema already says.

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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Monitor up to 3 URLs every ~5 minutes and send DOWN/UP alerts' — which clearly distinguishes this tool from the one-shot siblings check_website and check_websites. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, but the recurring-monitoring plus alerting framing makes the distinction obvious.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent must infer that this is for persistent, alerting-based monitoring rather than a one-off check. The 3-URL cap and the Pro upgrade path give some practical context for choosing it, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' statement, no exclusions, and no named alternatives.

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