http_request

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: JSON bodies are pretty-printed, large bodies are truncated, and json= sets Content-Type. It omits error-surface behavior, auth/credential handling, and side effects of the `assign` variable write.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and outcome, then the body-mode distinction. No filler and nothing repeated.

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?

For a 13-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape and body semantics; the per-parameter detail is fully carried by the schema. It would be complete if it mentioned the variable-storage side effect and TLS/redirect caveats at a high level, but nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description only re-frames the json-vs-body choice, which the schema already covers, and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (make an HTTP(S) request) plus exactly what it reports (status, timing, headers, body) and its intended context. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling `net`, which is the only remaining ambiguity for an agent choosing between them.

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?

"for testing the API you are building or calling" gives a clear usage context, and the json=/body= sentence steers the two main body modes. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. versus shell_exec + curl) or naming alternatives.

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