check_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (status code, redirect destination, response time) which is helpful, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid URLs. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly structured and concise - a clear purpose statement followed by bulleted use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the return format in detail (beyond mentioning what fields are included) or address potential edge cases, leaving room for improvement given the lack of structured output documentation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (urls and timeout) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as URL format requirements or timeout implications. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Check HTTP status codes') and resource ('for a list of URLs'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_page or crawl_site which focus on content analysis rather than status verification. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 includes explicit use cases ('Verify expired job pages are handled correctly', 'Check for broken links', 'Analyze redirect chains') that guide when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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