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

The description only notes that the body is discarded, but does not explain side effects, what triggers errors, or how the parameters are used. The parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the stated purpose (e.g., 'city' for weather, 'zone' for timezone), indicating unclear behavior.

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 contains minimal useful information. It is a single sentence that does not elaborate on the tool's functionality, making it insufficient despite its brevity.

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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description leaves critical information unspecified, such as what the tool returns (beyond 'body discarded'), how parameters affect behavior, and error conditions. The description is far from complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

Although the schema covers 100% of parameters, the descriptions are misleading and do not align with the tool's stated purpose. For instance, 'url' is described as 'normalize or cite' while the tool is about HTTP status, and 'query' is about search text length. The descriptions do not help the agent understand parameter usage for this tool.

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 'HTTP status for a public library docs URL' is vague and does not clarify what action is performed (e.g., check, fetch, validate). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like fetch-status or url-ok, as it does not specify the exact nature of the status check or how it relates to the diverse parameters.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over the many sibling tools with similar purposes. The description lacks any mention of alternative tools or conditions for selection.

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