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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which addresses one potential side effect. However, it does not mention any network behavior, caching, or other residual effects. Given no annotations exist, this partial transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 a single, direct sentence that avoids redundancy. It efficiently communicates the core function and a key limitation, making it easy to parse and act upon.

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 leaves significant gaps given the sibling tools and parameter list. It does not explain why json and zone parameters exist, nor does it specify the output format beyond naming the three data points. Without an output schema, the agent lacks full context for interpreting results.

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 parameter descriptions are individually meaningful (e.g., 'URL to normalize or cite'), but they do not cohere with the stated purpose. The presence of 'json' and 'zone' parameters is unexplained and seems unrelated to returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. This misalignment undermines the semantic clarity of the parameters.

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's function: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It specifies the exact data returned and the target resource (a URL). The additional note that page content is not stored further clarifies the tool's scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any situation-specific use cases or contrast with sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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