site_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behavior: cost (0.001 USDC per call), network (Base mainnet), and that payment is automatic from the wallet in PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY. It does not cover response format, timeouts, redirect-following depth, or failure behavior, but the payment/auth disclosure is substantial context above the annotation baseline.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the checks performed and followed by the cost/payment model. Every sentence earns its place; only the endpoint host 'api.sitesy.ca' is arguably extraneous detail, keeping it just below the top 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?

For a one-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what is checked and the payment mechanism. Missing is any hint of return shape or error handling, but the enumerated checks give the agent a reasonable expectation of the response content.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the domain format with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics (no normalization rules, no protocol prefix handling), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('quick site check') and enumerates exactly what is checked: HTTPS reachability, HTTP behaviour, certificate days remaining, security header presence. This is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with overlapping tools like dns_lookup or redirect_trace.

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?

'Quick site check' implies a fast, broad assessment, which gives some usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the many siblings. The agent must infer that this is the broad pre-flight option versus narrower tools like dns_lookup or page_reader.

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