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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds a meaningful privacy behavior ('Page content is not stored') and states what is returned, but it does not mention side effects, errors, or how the many discardable parameters behave beyond what the schema already says.

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 filler; the main result is front-loaded and the privacy note is a single useful 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?

Despite a many-parameter schema and no output schema, the description explains only the URL-related behavior and leaves the purpose of the other parameters and the expected call pattern unexplained. An agent cannot confidently determine the correct inputs from the description alone.

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?

The schema already covers the parameters at 100%, including discard behavior for each field. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming URL, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: it returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools 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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when URL host/scheme/HTTP status is needed), but it provides no explicit comparison, exclusions, or alternative tool names. The context is minimal and left to inference.

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