audit_canonical

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares read-only, one HTTP GET, only inspects HEAD section, and deterministic rule-based. Minor omission: no mention of error handling or response format, but overall transparent.

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?

Very concise: first sentence defines purpose, then read-only note, behavior, usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), description covers purpose, usage, parameter nuances, and alternatives. Doesn't describe output format, but agents can infer from listed audit aspects. Minor gap.

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 100% (baseline 3). Description adds valuable context: url parameter restrictions (fully-qualified http(s), follows redirects, only HEAD), and respect_robots usage guidance (only set false for own site).

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?

Description clearly states it audits canonical link integrity and lists specific checks (presence, self-reference, cross-domain mismatches, trailing-slash hygiene, og:url consistency). It distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives check_technical and audit_page.

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?

Explicitly states read-only nature, HTTP GET method, deterministic rule-based behavior, and provides clear when-to-use vs alternatives: 'For a full HEAD audit... use check_technical. For everything-on-a-page, use audit_page.'

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