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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds a useful behavioral fact (page content is not stored) and states the output fields, but it omits other relevant behaviors such as whether a network request is made, error handling, or rate limits.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the non-storage caveat is a valuable one-line addition.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple URL-status tool but leaves the model to infer that only url matters among nine optional parameters. With no output schema, a bit more detail about the return shape or how the other params are ignored would make invocation less ambiguous.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters, including their discarded nature. The description adds nothing meaningful about params beyond identifying URL as the target, which is sufficient at baseline.

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 and resource: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, plus a behavioral note that page content is not stored. It is easy to understand, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools such as fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 about when to choose this tool over siblings like fetch-status or web-fetch, and no exclusions are stated. The non-storage note weakly implies a lightweight citation use case, but it is not explicit enough to route a model correctly.

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