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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that the body is discarded and that only the HTTP status and content type are relevant. However, it does not mention redirects, timeout behavior, error handling, authentication, or the exact response format.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Both sentences carry useful information: the operation result and the key behavioral caveat that the body is discarded.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully support invocation. An agent cannot tell which parameter is the primary input, how the unrelated parameters are treated, or what the expected output/error shape is. This is a significant gap for a tool with this level of schema complexity.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, it adds little about how the many non-URL parameters (city, zone, query, json, etc.) relate to the stated fetch behavior, and the url parameter's schema description ('normalize or cite') does not align perfectly with the status/content-type purpose.

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 operation: return HTTP status and content type for a public URL, and explicitly notes that the body is discarded. This is clear and distinguishes the tool from content-fetching tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from similar siblings 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 description gives a useful boundary ('public URL', 'body discarded') but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as fetch-status, browser-url-ok, or normalize-url. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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