sitepeek: grade a page's HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, cookies, ...)

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, yet the description layers on substantial behavioral detail: private/internal/IP-literal targets are refused with 422 and not charged, max 4 redirects, ports 80/443 only, latency 0.3-2 s, price, free tier, and a prompt-injection warning about treating page text as untrusted. This is well beyond what the structured fields convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and sibling routing, followed by scope caveat, mechanics, and pricing. Every sentence carries information, though the operational details (latency, price, free tier, docs URL) make it dense; nothing is wasted.

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 not be spelled out, yet the description still names score/grade/deduction and the redirect chain. With the one required param, safety annotations, and full behavioral constraints all present, an agent has everything needed 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the url field, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning about what the URL may be: public http(s) only, ports 80/443, redirect handling, and refusal of private/internal targets.

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 (grade) and resource (a public page's HTTP security headers) and enumerates exactly which headers are evaluated. It explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (check_url_phishing for phishing lists, inspect_domain for DNS/TLS), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'For a phishing-list check use check_url_phishing; for DNS and TLS use inspect_domain.' It also states scope limits ('grades one response's headers, not the site... not an audit'), which is when-not guidance of the highest value.

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