check_canonical

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

Annotations confirm read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds that the tool fetches the URL, analyzes the canonical tag, and follows one 'canonical hop' to confirm 2xx, providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 covering all key actions and outputs without redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listed items) for clarity.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality and expected output (reporting on canonical issues). It mentions following one hop, which is a key detail. Missing is explicit mention of return format or error handling, but overall sufficient.

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 only parameter 'url' is fully described in the schema as 'Absolute http(s) URL to inspect.' The tool description adds that it fetches and analyzes, but no additional parameter meaning is needed. Schema coverage is 100%, so 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 explicitly states the tool fetches a URL and analyzes its canonical link tag, listing specific issues (self-referential, cross-host, protocol-mismatched, trailing-slash drift, missing canonical) and mentions following one hop. This uniquely identifies its function among many SEO analysis siblings.

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 implies its purpose for canonical analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like inspect_meta or mixed_content_check. No when-not-to-use or alternative names given.

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