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 disclose that page content is not stored, which is a privacy trait, but it omits other important behaviors such as network requests, error handling, or rate limits. This is minimal disclosure, scoring 2.

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 sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a relevant caveat. It is appropriately concise, earning a 5.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the role of each parameter, error handling, or usage context. It only gives a high-level purpose, so it scores 2.

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 each parameter has a description. However, the tool description does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose. For example, it is unclear why 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are inputs when the purpose is to return host, scheme, and status for a URL. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so it scores 2.

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 it returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, using a specific verb and resource. The added note that page content is not stored clarifies scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like normalize-url, so it scores 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any specific use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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