Audit HTTP security headers

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

Annotations already cover read-only and safe behavior, but the description adds substantial context: redirects are followed, the exact audit scope is listed, cookie flags are names only (never values), a score/grade with fixes is returned, and probed site content is flagged as untrusted data. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the 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 front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence earns its place. A minor redundancy is the 'Read-only' sentence, which repeats the readOnlyHint annotation, but overall it remains efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only single-parameter audit tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is fetched, what is audited, what is returned (score, grade, fixes), and the safety profile is covered by annotations. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears missing.

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% for the single url parameter, so the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond saying it fetches a URL, which is baseline behavior when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (fetches/audits) and resource (security headers), lists the exact header types checked, and distinguishes itself from a penetration test. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from any sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's scope ('audits security headers') and the boundary 'not a penetration test', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like http_probe or tls_inspect. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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