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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that markup is discarded, and parameter descriptions add 'discarded' and 'no disk access' notes, but the tool never states whether it fetches remote HTML, what it returns (just a count?), or whether it has side effects. This is a partial disclosure at best.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with every word contributing meaning. It is more than a tautology and avoids filler, though the noun-phrase structure without a verb makes it slightly too terse for ideal scannability.

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 nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to know what input to provide for counting canonical links or what result to expect. The mismatch between the canonical-link purpose and the heterogeneous parameter list is a significant unresolved gap.

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%, so the structured schema already documents each parameter. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the nine optional parameters appear largely disconnected from the stated canonical-link purpose, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the detail.

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 measurable outcome—counting HTML canonical links—and one behavioral trait (markup is discarded). It is clear enough for an agent to know what the tool computes, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like normalize-url or browser-url-ok.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no stated input source (e.g., URL, HTML string, fetched page). The only usage signal is the purpose inferred from the description, which is not enough for reliable selection among the many sibling shape-check tools.

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