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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds the concrete useful fact that the response body is discarded, so agents should not expect content. 'Public' also hints at no auth, though this is not explicit.

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 no filler; the core purpose and the body-discard behavior are both front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for what it covers.

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 seven heterogeneous parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not identify which parameter carries the URL, what HTTP status values to expect, or how errors are surfaced. The annotations cover safety but not invocation guidance.

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 description does not map 'public library docs URL' to any of the seven schema properties, and the schema's property descriptions are mismatched to the tool's purpose (Git refs, city weather, RSS feeds, JSON validation, file paths). High schema coverage is undermined by this incoherence, and the description adds no clarifying parameter meaning.

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 the operation as returning the HTTP status for a public library docs URL, and 'Body discarded' makes clear this is a status-only probe. It is differentiated from content-fetching siblings like web-fetch, though less clearly from a generic status checker like fetch-status.

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 phrase 'Body discarded' implicitly tells an agent to use this tool when only the HTTP status is needed, not the page content. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage context mostly implied.

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