Scan URL

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it may write a local screenshot artifact when screenshot:true, and it makes outbound browser and HTTP network requests. It also warns that allowPrivateNetwork:true is only for deliberate loopback development targets. These disclosures go beyond the annotations, giving the agent a realistic picture of side effects and network activity.

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 primary purpose and then adds usage hints. It is three sentences long, each earning its place: the first lists the checks, the second notes the screenshot side effect, and the third gives format and private-network guidance. No fluff or redundancy; the structure is logical and scannable.

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's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format beyond mentioning a 'shareable graded report' for markdown, nor does it describe the JSON structure. It omits critical parameters (maxLinks, viewport, weightBudget) and their constraints. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the result contains, but it doesn't. The description covers the main checks but leaves too many operational details undefined.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions a few parameters implicitly (screenshot, format, allowPrivateNetwork) and the 'checks' implied by the list of checks, but it does not describe key parameters like maxLinks, viewport, or weightBudget. The meaning of these nested objects and integers is left entirely to the schema, which lacks descriptions. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema documentation.

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's purpose: 'Inspect a URL with outbound browser and HTTP network requests' and enumerates a comprehensive list of checks (console errors, links, accessibility, Core Web Vitals, SEO, security headers, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on network-level scanning and the breadth of checks, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'Inspect' plus the specific resource (URL) and scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides some usage context, such as setting format to 'markdown' for a shareable report and noting that allowPrivateNetwork is limited to loopback development targets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like inspect_page or run_playwright_test. The guidance is more about configuration than about routing the agent to the right tool, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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