Check Url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds matching semantics (exact, parent-domain, URL path, CIDR) and names the result fields (match type, date, source, category), which go beyond annotations, though no auth or rate-limit details are provided.

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 plus a parenthetical, front-loaded with purpose and then the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant framing or filler.

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 an output schema, read-only and open-world annotations, and full parameter descriptions, the definition supplies the purpose, trigger, match semantics, and result composition an agent needs. Nothing material is missing for a read-only lookup tool.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or usage detail for 'url' or 'enrich', so the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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') and resource ('a URL'), plus the four match types (exact, parent-domain, URL path, CIDR). It does not name or contrast with sibling tools such as check_domain or check_ip, so sibling differentiation relies on the resource name alone.

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 says 'Call this first when a user asks whether a link is safe,' giving a clear trigger condition. It offers no when-not guidance or alternatives for domain/IP checks, so it provides context without exclusions.

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