check_headers

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but description adds rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro), truncation behavior (500 chars default, full via include), and result shape ({total, by_severity, findings}). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, rate limits, truncation and return. No unnecessary words.

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?

With 2 parameters, output schema hinted, and sibling tools, the description covers all needed context: purpose, usage, behavioral details, parameter semantics, and return structure.

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 describes both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value with an example for headers and explains the include parameter's effect on truncation and result structure, going beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool validates HTTP security headers with a specific verb and resource, listing example headers. It distinguishes from sibling scan_headers by indicating this tool validates provided headers while scan_headers fetches live.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'test header config before deployment or validate non-public servers'. Also provides alternative: 'use scan_headers to fetch live'.

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