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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Body discarded' but does not explain behaviors for the other parameter types (e.g., no disk access for path, discarded after check for json, etc.). It also omits any details about return format, error behavior, or side effects. The schema descriptions provide some of this, but the description itself is inadequate.

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 extremely short (two sentences) but under-specified. It front-loads the URL aspect but omits critical information about the tool's other capabilities. This is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness, as the sentences do not earn their place given the tool's complexity.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns for different input types, what 'shape check' means, or how the various parameters relate to each other. An agent cannot reliably determine correct usage from this definition.

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% because every parameter has a description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions URL, leaving the other parameters unexplained in the description. However, since the schema already documents each parameter, the description does not need to compensate heavily.

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 action (HTTP status and content type for a URL) but the tool accepts nine distinct parameter types (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.). It fails to describe the tool's actual scope as a multi-purpose shape checker, making the purpose incomplete and misleading for non-URL inputs. It does not distinguish from siblings like 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative sibling tools. The description gives no context for choosing web-fetch over fetch-status, normalize-url, or other related tools.

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