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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only lists categories checked but does not explain whether the tool fetches the URL, how it validates, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. Every word is essential, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter tool without output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on return type or behavior. It covers the core purpose but leaves gaps in expected output and usage conditions.

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 coverage is 0% for the single 'url' parameter, so description must compensate. It adds context that the URL will be checked for SSRF risks, but does not specify required format (e.g., protocol, encoding). A 3 is appropriate as some meaning is added.

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 clearly states the tool checks a URL for SSRF risk, specifically naming localhost, private IP, and metadata hosts. This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like url_parse or ipv4_private_check.

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 implies usage when SSRF risk assessment is needed, but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It lacks exclusion criteria or context for selecting this over similar security checks.

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