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

Annotations cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it discloses the output shape ('Reports HTTP status only, never file contents'), which is important for an agent interpreting results. It stops short of noting rate limits, auth needs, or network/legal constraints of probing a live site.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the key output constraint. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only probe with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, target examples, and the nature of the result. Minor gaps remain around result interpretation and any access/rate constraints when hitting a live site.

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?

Only one parameter (url) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Probe') and a precise resource ('accidentally exposed high-risk files') with concrete examples (.env, .git/config, backups). It is distinguishable from siblings like check_security_headers and check_ssl, though it never names an alternative to reinforce that distinction.

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 explains what the tool does but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing versus the several adjacent check_* tools. The agent must infer that this is a security-posture check.

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