1cent URL Intelligence

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

The description discloses that JavaScript is not executed and explains the baseline creation and hash comparison behavior. However, it lacks details on whether the tool follows redirects, handles non-200 status codes, requires authentication, or what happens on error. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but does not cover all relevant behavioral traits.

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 three sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: stating the core function, explaining baseline behavior, and noting the lack of JavaScript execution. It is front-loaded with the main action. One could argue that 'normalized content hash' could be briefly explained, but overall it is concise and efficient.

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 two parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description gives a functional overview but misses important details: the semantics of the 'fresh' parameter, what the returned hashes and timestamps look like, and edge cases (e.g., unresponsive URLs). It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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 input schema defines two parameters (url and fresh) with no description coverage. The tool description does not explain what 'fresh' does (e.g., whether it forces a re-fetch or bypasses cache). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and default value.

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 compares a URL with its previously stored normalized content hash, creates a baseline on first use, and reports changes with hashes and timestamps. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and includes the notable detail that JavaScript is not executed. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like url_extract, url_passport, or url_pulse.

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 for detecting URL content changes over time, but it does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., url_extract). There are no statements about prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for selecting among siblings.

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

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

Discloses key behaviors: returns normalized main text, optional links, bounded output size and fetch time, no JavaScript execution. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well.

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?

Concise and informative, covering key aspects in a few sentences. No redundancy. Could potentially add more structure (e.g., bullet list of outputs).

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?

Provides sufficient context for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema. Explains what is returned, bounds, and limitations. No major gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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% – description does not explain any of the three parameters (url, fresh, include_links). The mention of 'optional links' is the only hint. Fails to compensate for low coverage.

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?

Clearly states it extracts normalized main text and optional links from public HTTP/HTTPS documents. Specifies return fields (title, author, etc.). Differentiates from siblings by focusing on extraction, but does not explicitly contrast with url_changed, url_passport, or url_pulse.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or avoid. Mentions 'public' documents, implying not for private ones, but no alternatives or exclusions given. Does not reference sibling tools for comparison.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two key behavioral traits: uses at most eight external HTTP requests and does not execute JavaScript. This adds useful transparency beyond the schema.

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 sentences: first states core purpose, second lists contents and constraints. No extraneous words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 no output schema, the description lists the return fields (pulse, domain, robots, etc.) which is fairly complete. However, it does not address error cases, non-HTTP URLs, or response format details.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'url' (must be public HTTP or HTTPS) but does not explain the 'fresh' parameter beyond its type and default. Insufficient semantic context for both 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 clearly states the tool inspects a public HTTP or HTTPS URL and returns a structured site passport, which is a specific verb and resource. It lists multiple fields (pulse, domain, robots, etc.), making it distinct from siblings like url_changed or url_extract.

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 for comprehensive site inspection but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns availability, redirects, content type, page metadata, language, cache state, content hash, robots policy, and access restrictions. It also notes that JavaScript is not executed. This covers safety and functional traits adequately, though it omits potential rate limits or timeout details.

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 three sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the purpose and then efficiently lists return types and a key behavioral restriction. Every sentence 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?

Given no output schema, the description covers many return fields (availability, redirects, content type, etc.) which is comprehensive for a URL health check tool. It lacks only minor details like response format or error handling, but suffices for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the two parameters (url, fresh) are simple and self-explanatory from their names and types. The description adds value by mentioning 'cache state,' which hints at the 'fresh' parameter's purpose, but does not directly document each parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given low complexity and partial context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('public HTTP or HTTPS URL'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing pre-browsing verification, which is different from url_changed (change detection), url_extract (data extraction), and url_passport (likely authentication).

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 explicitly advises using the tool 'before expensive browsing or AI processing,' providing clear context for appropriate usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, though the use case is well-defined.

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