check_website_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses all behaviors: read-only, never logs in or modifies target, performs TLS handshake, checks certificate validity, protocol version, redirects, security headers, and latency. This exceeds typical transparency.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with each sentence adding specific value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is not verbose and clearly communicates the tool's functionality.

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 the complexity of a security check tool with many sub-checks and only one parameter, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (grade, fixes), and its read-only nature. No output schema is needed as the return is explained adequately.

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 already describes the target parameter as a domain or full URL with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond stating that http(s):// is optional. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it performs a live web health and security check on a domain or URL, returning an A–F grade with concrete fixes. It lists specific checks (TLS, redirects, headers) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'check_many' by focusing on a single target.

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 provides clear usage scenarios: 'before launching a site, when auditing a deployment, or to verify a domain you are about to trust.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly reference the sibling, but the context implies it's for single-target checks.

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