http_get

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses important behaviors: automatic JSON parsing for application/json responses, redirect following with per-hop SSRF re-validation, and refusal of private/loopback/link-local addresses unless allow_private_hosts is set. These are non-obvious and genuinely useful.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action and return value, the JSON parsing behavior, and the redirect/SSRF behavior. Front-loaded, no filler, and appropriately sized for an 11-parameter tool.

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 covers what the tool returns, how it parses responses, how it handles redirects, and the key SSRF safety constraint. Given the detailed input schema and the absence of an output schema, this is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does add one parameter-related detail (allow_private_hosts disables SSRF blocking), but it does not systematically enrich the parameter documentation beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Perform an HTTP GET. Returns status, headers, and body.' This clearly distinguishes it from HTTP sibling methods (post/put/patch/delete/head/options) and from the specialized fetch_* tools, which are not raw HTTP GET operations.

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 context is clear: use this tool for raw HTTP GET requests. However, it never explicitly mentions when to prefer a sibling like fetch_reader or fetch_html_to_markdown, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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