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

It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral note, but it omits other important details such as whether the tool performs network requests, any side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility but provides only minimal transparency.

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 succinct and to the point, using two short sentences to convey the core function and a key behavioral detail. There is no unnecessary verbiage or redundancy.

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 complexity introduced by four disparate parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how parameters are used, what output format to expect, or how this tool fits into the broader toolkit. The lack of an output schema and any example usage further reduces completeness.

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 are minimal and do not clarify how parameters like 'json' and 'zone' relate to the stated purpose of returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent uncertain about the role of each parameter.

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 clear function ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), but the parameter list includes 'json' and 'zone' which are unrelated to this purpose, creating confusion about the tool's actual scope. The presence of sibling tools like normalize-url and validate-json further blurs its distinct role.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url or validate-json. It does not mention any conditions or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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