network_website_status_checker

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

The description discloses numerous behavioral traits beyond annotations: real network request, SSRF safety (host pinned to public IP, private/reserved IPs rejected), TLS verification on, CAPTCHA-gated, rate limits (30/min, 180/hour, 500/day). Annotations only provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc., which are not contradicted. This is comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, safety details, rate limits, and key output fields. While thorough, it is somewhat lengthy with three paragraphs; however, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but well-structured overall.

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 tool has 2 parameters (1 required), an output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers purpose, alternatives, behavioral aspects, safety, rate limits, and hints at output fields. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be fully detailed here.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (url with example, worker_id with description). The description adds general context but no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 checks website uptime via HTTP GET, reporting status code, accessibility, response time, redirect chain, and headers. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like network_ping, network_ssl_certificate, and network_dns_lookup, making purpose and differentiation evident.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this for HTTP-level reachability, status codes, and latency; use network_ping for ICMP host reachability, network_ssl_certificate to inspect the TLS certificate, and network_dns_lookup for DNS records.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives.

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