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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: the check is a live network fetch of a well-known path, and an apex redirecting to its www host is followed and reported as final_origin — non-obvious semantics an agent could not infer from 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then inputs then return shape, with zero filler. Every clause (live fetch, redirect following, final_origin) carries distinct 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?

No output schema exists, and the description steps in to describe the return payload (found/absent plus URL, status, reason, final_origin). Combined with the disclosed network behavior, this is nearly complete; only the acquisition of valid standard ids is left unexplained.

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 the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define both params semantically — origin as hostname and id as standard id — but gives no format, syntax, or source guidance for obtaining a valid 'id', leaving a real gap for a 2-param tool.

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: 'Check one public origin for one standard by fetching its well-known path live.' The single-origin/single-standard scope is concrete. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'probe', which sounds like an adjacent check operation.

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 phrase 'one public origin for one standard' implies this is a targeted, per-origin check rather than a bulk scan, which gives some implied usage context. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., probe vs. this) is provided.

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