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

The statement 'Page content is not stored' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure, especially with no annotations present. However, it does not address whether the tool makes a live network request, follows redirects, or has other side effects, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by the privacy-relevant note. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 covers the primary return values and a key privacy guarantee, which is enough for a simple URL call. However, with no output schema and a large parameter surface, it leaves unclear how the many discardable parameters interact and what a full response looks like.

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 parameter descriptions already carry the necessary meaning. The tool description adds little beyond naming 'URL' as the relevant input, so it does not exceed the 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 names a concrete operation: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It also adds a useful qualifier about page content not being stored. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like 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 use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url. The description states what it returns but gives no context, exclusions, or alternative references.

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