w3c_validate_live_urls_raw

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

The description only states it's a DEPRECATED alias pointing to validation.w3c.validate_urls_raw.v1. It provides no behavioral detail about what the tool does with the URLs, what level filtering means, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but fails to convey the actual validation behavior beyond the name itself.

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 two sentences—one stating it's deprecated and one pointing to the replacement. It's compact and front-loaded with the key deprecation signal, but in the context of being an alias for the real tool it omits substantive operational detail that should accompany its brief form.

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?

The description is incomplete for an 2-parameter tool with a validation verb. It doesn't explain what validation returns, what 'level=error' filtering accomplishes, or how it differs from sibling validation tools like validate_and_recheck or autofix_safe. Despite having an output schema, the description doesn't orient the agent on when results are actionable.

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?

There is 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining what 'urls' and 'level' mean in the validation context. However, the description adds zero parameter information—'urls' and 'level' are only documented by the schema itself. The description completely fails to compensate for the coverage 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 identifies this as a deprecated alias for the canonical tool 'validation.w3c.validate_urls_raw.v1', which gives the agent a clear pointer to the intended behavior. However, it doesn't actually state what the tool does on its own—the purpose is only inferred from the referenced target. It does distinguish itself from siblings by name, but the substantive purpose is deferred entirely to the alias target.

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 tells the agent not to use this (since it's deprecated) and to use the replacement instead. This is an explicit exclusion and alternative, which is genuinely helpful guidance. However, it says nothing about when the underlying validation operation itself is appropriate, which is a context the agent still needs from the referenced tool.

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