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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only discloses that the body is discarded. It does not explain network behavior, how multiple supplied parameters are handled, potential failure modes, or what the returned HTTP status actually represents.

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 concise, but it under-specifies a tool with nine optional parameters and a broad input schema. This brevity is closer to under-specification than effective compaction.

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 description is incomplete for a nine-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema. It only addresses a library-docs-URL case and leaves unclear how the other fields relate to invocation or what output an agent should expect beyond an HTTP status.

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 100%, and each field's description already explains its meaning and discard behavior, such as 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check.' The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 says 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL,' which names an operation and target, but the input schema accepts nine unrelated optional fields (city, feed, json, query, etc.) and the name 'lib-docs-hint' is ambiguous. It also does not distinguish this tool from sibling status checkers like fetch-status or browser-url-ok.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria beyond the implied docs-URL context. 'Body discarded' hints at behavior but does not help an agent decide when to use this tool instead of the many related sibling tools.

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