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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: "Page content is not stored." With no annotations provided, though, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does not mention network side effects, error handling, or whether only the URL parameter is actually used.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main function is front-loaded, and the non-storage note is a useful secondary detail that earns its place.

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 a nine-parameter schema, no annotations, no output schema, and several overlapping sibling tools, this description is under-specified. It omits the return format, whether the URL is required, how invalid or non-HTTPS URLs behave, and which parameters are ignored at the tool level.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying what the URL parameter produces: host, scheme, and HTTP status. It does not explain the other eight parameters, but their schema descriptions already cover disposal semantics.

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 the action and scope: "Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL." This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from overlapping siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, which may also return parts of this information.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. It also does not say whether this is preferred for citation-only checks or when page content should not be stored.

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