validate_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validating 'formato y accesibilidad' (format and accessibility), which implies checking syntax and possibly making HTTP requests, but it doesn't detail what 'accesibilidad' entails (e.g., HTTP status codes, timeouts, or authentication needs). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Spanish: 'Validar formato y accesibilidad de una URL'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (validating URLs with accessibility checks), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'validar formato' means (e.g., regex validation), what 'accesibilidad' involves (e.g., HTTP requests), or what the return values might be (e.g., success/failure, error details). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions: 'url' as 'URL a validar' and 'check_accessibility' as 'Verificar si la URL es accesible'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 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 tool's purpose: 'Validar formato y accesibilidad de una URL' (Validate format and accessibility of a URL). It specifies the verb 'validar' and the resource 'URL', making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'parse_url' or 'extract_urls', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'parse_url' (which might analyze URL components) or 'extract_urls' (which might find URLs in text), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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