check_headers

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

With no annotations provided, the description thoroughly explains behavior: read-only, stateless, idempotent, no auth for basic use, rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling, and data privacy. This fully compensates for missing 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Behavior, When to use/not use, Args, Behavioral Transparency). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 security analysis and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all necessary context: side effects, authentication, rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. It provides a complete picture for invocation.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that restates parameter names and types, but the descriptions ('the headers json to analyze or process', 'the api key to analyze or process') are vague and add little beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so some addition is needed, but the descriptions are minimal.

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 tool analyzes HTTP response headers for security and best practices. It distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_curl, send_request, and validate_response by focusing on analysis rather than generation, sending, or validation.

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 explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections. It guides the agent to use this tool for structured analysis and warns against real-time production decision-making without human review, effectively differentiating from siblings.

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