check_technical

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

The description discloses key traits: read-only, single HTTP GET, inspects HEAD only, deterministic and rule-based, no LLM. While no annotations exist, it covers behavioral essentials. Minor gap: could mention error handling or response 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?

Four sentences with no fluff: purpose, read-only/scope, deterministic nature, and usage guidelines. Front-loaded with the most important 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 sufficiently explains what the tool checks and how it works. It could hint at return structure (e.g., a list of findings), but the current level is adequate for 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 100% with good descriptions, and the tool's description adds context (e.g., body not parsed for url, explanation for respect_robots on when to set false). This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Audit' and the resource 'page's HEAD section', enumerates specific technical signals (HTTPS, canonical, OpenGraph, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying scope (HEAD only) and contrasting with audit_page (full page) and audit_canonical (canonical-only).

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' guidance and gives alternatives: for full page analysis use audit_page, for canonical-only use audit_canonical. This directly helps the agent decide between sibling tools.

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