get_url_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and states what returns (formatted analysis report). However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, external dependencies, or whether the report is cached or real-time, which is somewhat expected for a report tool.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with a one-sentence summary of the tool's purpose, followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It doesn't mention sibling distinctions, but that is not essential for completeness in this simple case.

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 schema for the single parameter 'url' only includes its type and title. The description compensates by explaining 'url: The URL to analyze,' which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, this explanation is valuable and sufficient for a single self-explanatory parameter.

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 clearly states 'Get comprehensive URL analysis report' with a specific resource (URL) and verb (Get). It is obvious what the tool does, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_domain_report or get_url_relationship.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives (e.g., get_domain_report for domains). It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers for selecting this tool.

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