Check RaivatEdu Website Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the mechanism (a single HTTP HEAD request, not a full page fetch), the reported metrics, and the exact response object. Minor ambiguity remains between 'the RaivatEdu website' and 'a market home page', and failure behavior (e.g., what status is returned when unreachable) is unspecified.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then args and return shape — a sensible ordering. The Args block largely duplicates the schema, which is mild redundancy, but the sentence count stays tight.

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?

With no output schema present, the description correctly supplies the JSON return shape, including reachable/status/url/response_time_ms/checked_at, which the agent needs to interpret results. It is nearly complete; only error/unreachable semantics and pagination-irrelevant edge cases are left unstated.

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% and both parameters are enums with documented defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The Args section restates the market enum and the default-configuration behavior without adding syntax or edge-case meaning beyond what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Check whether ... is reachable and how fast it responds') with the exact target URL, and the HEAD-request detail pins down the mechanism. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like raivatedu_get_website_info or raivatedu_get_page_content, which fetch content rather than probe liveness.

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?

Explicitly gives use contexts: 'confirm the site is up before running other tools, or to diagnose failures.' That is actionable guidance an agent can act on. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a when-not condition, so it is not a 5.

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