Analyze URL

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

No annotations exist, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether analysis is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens to downloaded content, or cost implications for deep/private scans. The description merely states what the tool does without disclosing side effects or constraints.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and input type. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it omits potentially useful context, preventing a perfect score.

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 three parameters, high sibling count, and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not differentiate from siblings, explain return values, or warn about cost/credits, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Given high schema coverage, baseline is 3; the description does not elevate it further.

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's function: 'Analyze content at a direct HTTP(S) URL using ZeroTrue.' It specifies the verb (analyze), the resource (content at a URL), and the system (ZeroTrue). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zerotrue_analyze_file and zerotrue_analyze_text, which handle different input types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention scenarios for which it is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it direct users to alternative tools for file or text input.

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