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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the non-obvious behavior that the body is discarded, which is helpful, but it omits any mention of error handling, network request behavior, or response format details.

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, focused sentences with the core function and the key behavioral caveat front-loaded. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 input schema has seven parameters of unclear relationship to the described function, and there is no output schema. The description does not clarify how or whether the extra parameters affect behavior, what the response format looks like, or how to choose this tool over near-sibling tools like fetch-status. This is a meaningful gap for an agent trying to call it 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?

All seven parameters already have descriptive text in the input schema, such as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema does the work and 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 the tool returns HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and adds the body-discarding behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 use cases: public URLs and cases where only status/content type matter, not the body. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage guidance only implied.

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