http_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose behavioral traits: a 25-URL cap, a deliberate rate-limiting behavior ('polite delay between requests'), and a legal/ethical authorization requirement. It is a read-only informational check, so the safety profile is inherently clear, but it omits any statement of what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every sentence carries weight (limit, rate behavior, authorization), with no 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?

For a straightforward three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this covers purpose, limits, rate behavior, and authorization. The main remaining gap is that, with no output schema, the description never states the shape of the result (e.g., per-URL status), leaving the return format to inference.

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%, so delayMs and timeoutMs are already fully documented in the schema. The description only reinforces the max-25 limit and adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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') and resource ('HTTP status codes') with scope ('a list of URLs, max 25'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like seo_basics or security_headers by what it inspects, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('Only use on sites you own or have explicit permission to test') and a scope restriction ('defensive/informational checks only'), which rules out misuse. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tools broken_links, seo_basics, or security_headers.

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