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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds a useful non-storage guarantee: 'Page content is not stored.' However, it does not disclose network side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no URL is supplied.

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 sentences with front-loaded core output and a meaningful privacy note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler 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?

The description names the return values and a key behavioral guarantee, but there is no output schema and no annotations. Given nine optional parameters and no required parameters, the description does not clarify the expected invocation shape or failure behavior. The schema compensates for parameter semantics but not overall context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond naming URL; the schema already documents each parameter, including discard behavior. No extra semantic value is provided.

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 specific verb and output: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling URL/status tools such as fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, preferred conditions, or the fact that the other eight parameters appear to be discarded. The agent must infer usage from the schema.

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