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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description adds operational specifics beyond annotations: authentication not required, free cost, typical latency, and the decision-support nature of the output ('structured evidence for accept / retry / escalate decisions'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured usage guidance and operational details. Each sentence adds value; the redundancy with annotations ('Read only: true') is minor and does not detract. The organization makes it easy for an agent to scan and act.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to elaborate return values. It covers purpose, usage exclusions, parameter guidance, operational characteristics (auth, cost, latency), and the intended decision framework, making it fully complete for a verification tool.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, setting a baseline of 3. The description enriches parameter usage with a concrete recommendation: 'Prefer expected_text that distinguishes the new version (build id, version string, unique copy)', which adds practical guidance on choosing a discriminating value beyond the schema's generic text description.

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 ('verifies') and resource ('public website'), and defines the scope (HTTP status, HTTPS validity, optional expected text) and outcome (structured evidence for accept/retry/escalate). It clearly distinguishes from the only sibling, understand_webpage, by focusing on verification rather than content extraction.

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 contains explicit 'When to use' and 'Do not use when' sections, naming concrete use cases (deployment claims, reachability, status, redirects, exact text) and excluding scenarios like private URLs, subjective visual judgments, and redundant checks alongside understand_webpage. It explicitly contrasts with understand_webpage, noting that a successful understand_webpage call already proves reachability.

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