http_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns status code, latency, final URL, and response headers, and mentions cost and wallet requirement. However, it does not detail error handling or potential failures like timeouts, though the scope is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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 a single concise sentence followed by a useful tagline. Every part earns its place, with no wasted words.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, usage context, and return components. It is fairly complete, though a note about error behavior or timeout limits would make it more robust.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it explains the URL parameter implicitly ('any public URL') but does not elaborate on the method parameter beyond what's in the schema.

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 any public URL for status code, latency, final URL after redirects, and response headers. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from siblings like tls_cert and whois by focusing on HTTP metadata.

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 calls it 'the uptime primitive for agent monitors,' implying use for monitoring, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it. The tagline provides context but lacks explicit guidance.

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