verify_image_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states that it performs HTTP HEAD/GET, updates image.primary.status to 'active' or 'broken', and returns a report. This gives good insight into side effects and actions, though it does not mention potential external network calls' impact or rate limits explicitly.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core purpose, and the second expands with necessary technical details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema (covering the report), and the description's coverage of scanning, verification method, status update, and return value, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides all essential context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (skip, batch_size, user_agent). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value for understanding their syntax, defaults, or interplay, which is a clear gap.

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 verb ('Verify') and resource ('image URLs for contests') and distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_contests_with_broken_images by mentioning the database update. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies appropriate usage by specifying the exact scope (contests with image.primary.url) and the action performed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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