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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful privacy trait ('Page content is not stored'), but it does not explain required inputs, failure behavior, whether requests are made, or any side effects. This is too thin for an unannotated network-related tool.

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, front-loaded with the result and followed by a valuable privacy note. No filler words or redundant restatements of the tool name.

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 tool has seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only names the URL and the three return fields. It fails to explain which parameter is required, how errors are surfaced, or why the other parameters exist, leaving significant gaps for 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?

The input schema already describes all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the URL is the central input and that host/scheme/status are outputs, which helps slightly, but it does not disambiguate the many discarded or decoy-looking parameters such as host, path, and json.

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 names a specific result (host, scheme, HTTP status) for a URL, which makes the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. There are no exclusions, conditions, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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