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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy/behavioral detail and no annotations are provided. However, it does not mention network access, rate limits, or any other side effects, so transparency is only partial.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or promotional language. It is appropriately concise for the stated function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description does not fully explain expected output format, error conditions, or how the many optional parameters relate to the tool's purpose. The description is too sparse for the schema's complexity.

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 parameters have schema descriptions, but the tool description only mentions URL while the schema includes many apparently unrelated fields like city, zone, json, and query. This mismatch makes parameter purpose confusing and reduces the added meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action—return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL—and identifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from content-fetching tools by explicitly noting that page content is not stored.

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 a use case (checking URL metadata) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool over siblings like web-fetch, fetch-status, or normalize-url. No alternative tools or conditions are mentioned.

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