get_url_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'detailed index information' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., crawl status, indexing dates, canonicalization). It also omits critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, 0% parameter schema coverage, and multiple similar siblings, the description is incomplete—it lacks behavioral context, parameter guidance, and usage distinctions. It meets a minimal baseline by stating the purpose but falls short of providing a comprehensive understanding for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, with two required parameters ('site_url' and 'url') that are undocumented. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what 'site_url' versus 'url' represent, their expected formats, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters ambiguous.

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 action ('Get detailed index information') and resource ('for a specific URL'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_url_traffic_info' by focusing on 'index information' rather than traffic data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fetch_url' or 'get_fetched_url_details', which might have overlapping functions.

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 versus alternatives. With siblings like 'fetch_url', 'get_fetched_url_details', and 'get_url_traffic_info', there's no indication of which tool is appropriate for different scenarios (e.g., real-time fetching vs. historical index data). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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