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

The description adds one behavioral fact: 'Page content is not stored,' which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose whether the tool makes a network request, how it handles the nine unrelated schema parameters, or what the call actually does beyond the stated output. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with no waste. The primary output is front-loaded, and the sentence about non-storage of page content is a clean, useful addition. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the roles of the many unrelated parameters, nor does it give enough for an agent to know when to call this vs. a sibling. The non-storage statement is a positive, but the overall picture remains incomplete.

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 tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, and it does not clarify why parameters like city, json, zone, or query exist in relation to the stated purpose of URL status checking.

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 ('Return') and resource ('a URL') with a clear output (host, scheme, HTTP status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like web-fetch and fetch-status by including host and scheme, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as fetch-status or normalize-url. It gives no context for selecting the tool, no exclusions, and no alternative names. The only hint is the functional scope, which implicitly suggests URL checking, but nothing explicit.

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