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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return payload but does not mention that it performs a network request, that the default followRedirects=false shows redirect targets rather than following them, or any potential side effects/timeouts. The schema covers some of this, but the description alone is thin.

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 sentence that is direct and informative, listing the key outputs without extraneous wording. It earns its place and is immediately scannable.

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?

Given the simple tool and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential return values. It lacks explicit error behavior or examples, but the output list is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. No output schema exists, so the description's list is valuable.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-described (url format, method enum, timeout bounds, followRedirects semantics). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Probe') with a clear resource ('a URL') and enumerates the exact return data (status code, headers, response time, redirect info). This fully distinguishes it from any sibling tool, none of which probe URLs.

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 purpose is clear, and there are no sibling tools that serve the same function, so the intended use case is evident. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (which are not needed) or any conditions like using GET for body info, though that hint exists in the schema.

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