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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful detail that page content is not stored, but it omits important behavioral information such as whether the URL is fetched over the network, how redirects are handled, what happens on invalid URLs, or how the multiple optional parameters interact.

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 very concise, with two short sentences and no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the additional behavioral note is relevant and efficient.

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 the absence of an output schema, the lack of annotations, and the presence of seven optional parameters, the description is not complete enough. It does not explain the output format, which parameters are required for meaningful use, or how multiple supplied parameters are handled, leaving an agent uncertain about correct invocation.

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 high at 100%, with each parameter already explained individually. The description adds context by identifying the URL as the source of host, scheme, and HTTP status, but it does not go beyond the schema for the remaining parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's primary function: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from closely related 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related alternatives such as fetch-status, web-fetch, or normalize-url. The sentence 'Page content is not stored' hints at a safe, lightweight use case, but the description never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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