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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that page content is not stored. It does not disclose that the tool accepts and discards many unrelated parameters, nor does it describe side effects, requirements, or error behavior, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 with the primary behavior front-loaded and no filler. The page-content privacy note is relevant and earns its place.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain why the schema includes city, feed, json, zone, query, and other unrelated-looking fields, nor does it specify the return structure or distinguish the tool from its siblings.

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 percent, so the baseline is 3. The description itself only mentions URL, but every parameter already has a meaningful schema description, including notes about values being discarded.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. This is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate the tool from siblings such as normalize-url or fetch-status, which likely overlap in purpose.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The only added statement, page content is not stored, is a behavioral constraint rather than a usage recommendation.

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