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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only mentions 'cheap' and lists outputs, but does not disclose whether it performs a network request, potential side effects, failure behavior, or how the data is gathered. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely hits external 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 description is a single concise line that gets to the point immediately, using a leading adjective ('Cheap') and a focused list of outputs. Every word counts and there is no redundancy.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide richer context about behavior, return format, and parameter semantics. It only offers a high-level summary, leaving the agent uncertain about how to use it correctly or interpret its results.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for the parameters. While 'url' is self-evident, 'peek_bytes' is completely unexplained. The description's listed items are outputs, not parameter details, so it fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('preflight') and resource ('URL'), and lists concrete data points (title, h1, js_hint, recommended_mode) that it returns. This distinguishes it from a full fetch like read_url, but it does not explicitly compare to siblings.

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 term 'cheap' implies use for lightweight quick checks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like read_url, crawl, or page_metadata. No exclusions or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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