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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosure. It does add one behavioral trait ('Body discarded'), but it omits how the other parameters are treated, whether the URL must be a library docs URL to receive a meaningful status, or any side effects. The scope of 'public library docs URL' is undefined.

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 with two sentences that each carry distinct information: the primary function and the body-discarding behavior. No wasted words, though the brevity veers toward under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is only 10 words. It fails to explain what the tool returns beyond 'HTTP status', which parameters are actually used for that purpose, or how the other parameters factor in. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and each parameter's description already explains its purpose and discarding behavior. The tool description adds zero parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it holds at the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool yields an HTTP status for a public library docs URL, which names a resource and result type. However, it lacks an explicit action verb, doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like fetch-status, and conflicts with the 9-parameter schema that includes unrelated fields (city, feed, json, zone). The term 'hint' further muddles the intended function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues to help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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