Http Headers Inspect

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it inspects specific header types, which is useful but does not elaborate on behavior like rate limits, response size, or potential errors. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences cover the purpose and an important contextual note about pricing and separation from the witness protocol. No redundant information. Could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple inspecting tool with two parameters, the description is adequate but lacks details on the output format, pagination, or error handling. The absence of an output schema means the description could have provided more context on expected results, but the annotations cover safety.

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?

Both parameters (url and timeout) are fully described in the input schema with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or usage hints beyond what the schema provides, 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 clearly states the verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'security, cache, redirect, and server headers' to audit a URL, making the purpose specific. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like util_url_health or util_website_intelligence_report, but the focus on headers is distinct enough.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'quickly' but does not specify prerequisites, when to avoid use, or compare with other similar tools. The pricing note is about utility, not usage context.

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