http_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral outcome (returns supported methods and CORS policy) beyond what annotations state, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose network-related behaviors like potential timeouts or SSRF protection, though these are mentioned in parameter descriptions. Given the strong annotation coverage, the description adds modest value but not a rich behavioral context.

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 with zero fluff. The primary action and return value are front-loaded, and the 'Helpful for API discovery' note is appended as a secondary signal. Every word earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick agent scanning.

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 complexity (11 parameters, nested objects) and lack of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the purpose, the return value, and hints at use cases. The schema and annotations handle the rest (parameter meanings, safety, idempotency). No critical behavioral aspect an agent needs to safely invoke it is missing, though it could mention that it's read-only (already covered by annotations) or note SSRF protections (already in parameter description).

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters, including defaults, bounds, and types. The description itself does not explain any parameters beyond implying the URL via 'for a resource.' Since the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no semantic value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb (Perform an HTTP OPTIONS) and the resource (the target URL) and what it returns (supported methods and CORS policy). It distinguishes itself from sibling HTTP verbs like http_get or http_post by naming the specific HTTP method, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings. The mention of 'API discovery' adds helpful context for when an agent would choose this tool.

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 implies usage for API discovery but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like http_get or http_head, nor when not to use it. It provides some context ('Helpful for API discovery') but lacks explicit exclusion criteria or guidance on selecting between the many HTTP siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where OPTIONS would be inappropriate.

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