validation_is_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does state the acceptance rule (http or https scheme required), which is the key behavioral trait for a validator. It stops short of describing edge cases such as missing schemes, malformed authority, or whether invalid input yields false versus an error.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier attached directly to the verb; nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a one-parameter predicate is nearly fully covered by this sentence. Only the validation edge-case semantics remain unstated.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'text' is undocumented in the schema; the description only implies the input is 'a string'. That mapping is obvious enough that the gap is minor, but the description adds no constraints, format expectations, or examples.

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?

States a specific verb (check/validate) and resource (URL), and narrows scope to 'http or https scheme', which cleanly separates it from sibling validators like validation_is_email, validation_is_ipv4, and validation_is_uuid.

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 name and description make the predicate use case self-evident, and the http/https qualifier implies non-http schemes should be routed elsewhere, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative is named.

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