verify_website

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'checks HTTP response and content availability' but does not explain success/failure criteria, handling of timeouts, or response format. This is insufficient for a live check tool.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds detail. Could be considered efficient, but it lacks a brief usage context or return value hint.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, message), how to interpret results, or any side effects. A verification tool should provide expected output.

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 100%, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'target' might need a protocol prefix or that 'timeout_ms' affects behavior. The description repeats schema content without adding value.

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 verb 'verify' and the resource 'website', and specifies that it checks HTTP response and content availability. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_dns or verify_ssl, which focus on different aspects.

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 implies basic web accessibility checking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no guidance on prerequisites or context.

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