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 positive transparency note. However, it does not clarify whether the tool performs a network request to obtain HTTP status, any rate limits, or other side effects, leaving some behavioral aspects ambiguous.

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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the primary action and a key side effect. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured.

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 presence of four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how the parameters interact or what output format to expect. It also fails to differentiate the tool from closely related siblings, leaving the agent without enough context to select it confidently.

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 schema descriptions for parameters are present (100% coverage) but are vague and do not explain how they relate to the tool's core function. For instance, 'host', 'json', and 'zone' are not mentioned in the description, and their schema descriptions like 'Public hostname' or 'IANA timezone name' lack context for a citation tool. The description adds no further 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 the tool returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like normalize-url or status-catalog. It also explicitly notes that page content is not stored, adding clarity.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as normalize-url or inspect-robots. It only states the output without contextualizing the appropriate use case.

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