check_headers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context: default truncation to 500 chars, the effect of the 'include' parameter, and that no external requests are made. No contradictions.

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?

Description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then key behavior (truncation), and return format. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it vs. alternatives, key parameter behavior (truncation), rate limits, and return format. Annotations and schema are comprehensive, making this well-rounded.

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% for both parameters. Description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the truncation behavior and the effect of the 'include' parameter ('pass include='full' for the full raw value'), and notes the return format. This practical context helps the agent use the parameter correctly.

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 validates HTTP security headers, listing specific headers like CSP and HSTS. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'scan_headers' by specifying that this tool validates provided headers while the other fetches live headers. The verb 'validate' and resource 'headers' are specific.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use to test header config before deployment or validate non-public servers; use scan_headers to fetch live.' Also mentions rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), providing context for when to use.

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