Verify a URL is live

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-network profile is covered. The description adds that it checks status and optionally body text, but says nothing about timeouts, redirects, authentication, or what happens on failure. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the decision context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool is simple and all parameters are well documented in the schema. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what a verification result looks like (e.g., pass/fail, observed vs expected status, text-match outcome). For a verification tool, that return-value gap keeps it at minimum viable completeness.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description restates the purpose of the URL, status, and text checks but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('check/verify') and resource ('a URL') and clarifies the scope: response status and optional expected body text. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from narrower siblings like verify_github or verify_npm, leaving the agent to infer that this is the generic URL checker.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use before claiming something is deployed or live.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, which keeps it below a 5.

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