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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key trait: fail closed, meaning uncertain or failed checks should be treated as failures. It also notes the check is against the live policy, adding useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 only two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical behavioral note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, and the description sufficiently explains the outcome ('pass/fail'), the timing ('before recommending'), and the failure behavior ('fail closed'). It does not detail return format or edge cases, but for this tool's complexity, the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates 'URL' without adding format constraints, scheme requirements, or other semantics. The property name is self-explanatory, and the description confirms the URL is the object of the check, which is minimally adequate for a single parameter.

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 action: pass/fail a URL against the live policy. It is not a tautology and identifies the resource (URL) and the evaluation context (live policy), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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 phrase 'before recommending it to a human' gives clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but an agent can infer when this tool should be invoked in a recommendation workflow.

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