analyze_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action (scraping and diagnosing), the extracted fields, and the return value ('diagnóstico de prontidão por seção'). It does not mention side effects or error handling, but it clearly implies a read-only audit operation, which is sufficient for a simple scraping 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 three sentences: the first states the core action, the second lists what is extracted and returned, and the third gives the ideal usage context. Each sentence earns its place with no unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a clear summary of the tool's purpose, inputs, and output. It names specific extracted fields and the diagnostic nature of the result. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), this is nearly complete, though it could have elaborated on the 'sections' of the diagnosis or potential prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'url' is already described as 'URL do produto na loja (http/https)'. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'link do produto' but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Raspa e diagnostica' (scrapes and diagnoses) and the resource 'página de um produto na loja própria do cliente' (product page on the client's own store). It also lists specific extractions and the diagnostic output, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_image or lookup_ean.

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 an explicit use case: 'Ideal para: o lojista cola o link do produto e o agente audita' (ideal for when the store owner pastes the product link and the agent audits). This gives clear context, though it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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