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

The description discloses that the body is discarded, but it does not explain what happens to the other eight parameters or whether any side effects occur. With no annotations, the description fails to convey the tool's full behavior, such as authentication needs or rate limits.

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 brief, which is concise, but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool correctly.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of most parameters, expected inputs, or return values, making it impossible for an agent to invoke the tool appropriately.

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?

While the schema has 100% description coverage, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the stated purpose, and the mention of only a URL is inconsistent with the broad set of parameters.

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 ('HTTP status') and a resource ('public library docs URL'), but it contradicts the input schema which includes unrelated parameters like city, zone, json, and query. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., fetch-status, browser-url-ok). There is no mention of alternatives or conditions for selection.

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