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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it performs SSRF checks on redirects, DNS, and connected addresses, plus hashing and injection screening. Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The cost mention is helpful, but there's no detail on failure modes, rate limits, or output 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?

Single efficient sentence that packs in key features and cost. Front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words.

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 and a single parameter, the description covers the core action and security checks. However, it omits return value details, error handling, and cost implications beyond the flat fee. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and there is one required parameter 'url'. The description doesn't explain the parameter's expected format beyond the schema's 'uri' type, but 'bounded' and 'public' imply restrictions on what URLs are allowed. Baseline 3 when schema has minimal elaboration.

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+resource: 'fetch bounded public evidence' with the added detail of SSRF checks and hashing. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'try_service' or 'webhook_verifier'.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The '0.004 USDC' cost hints at a paid service, but there's no guidance on when it's appropriate or what happens if the fetch fails.

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