http_request

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: automatic credential attachment, ignoring Authorization headers, blocking non-public addresses, and redirect validation. No rate limits or error details are mentioned.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose, then provide specific behavioral details and constraints. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers major behavioral aspects and constraints. Lack of parameter-level details is a gap, but output schema exists to describe return values. Could mention error handling or response format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds context about methods and Authorization header restrictions, but does not explain parameters like body, json_body, query_params, or headers beyond the auth note. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but more detail would help.

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's purpose: making authenticated HTTP requests to public APIs, listing supported HTTP methods, and explicitly distinguishing itself from sibling tools by noting it handles authentication and blocks non-public addresses.

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 clear context for when to use (public APIs) and what not to do (avoid Authorization headers). However, it does not explicitly state when alternatives like scrape_web_page might be more appropriate.

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