network_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context: partial-failure semantics ('HTTP failures remain visible'), a security boundary (no private/loopback probing), and a permissions note. Return contents ('DNS addresses, timings and HTTP status') partly duplicate the output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded, followed by return content and then the safety constraint. The trailing '[v1.0.0; permissions: none]' tag is slightly noisy but compact and arguably useful metadata.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and rich annotations cover the safety profile. The description still conveys scope, failure behavior, and permissions, leaving little an agent needs that is missing. Only the lack of sibling routing keeps it from 5.

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% and each parameter is self-documented (url, http, timeoutMs including redirects and default). The description's 'optionally check its HTTP connectivity' loosely mirrors the http flag but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a public HTTP(S) URL and optionally check its HTTP connectivity.' An agent immediately knows this is a DNS/HTTP diagnostic. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent diagnostic siblings such as bridge_diagnostics, so it falls 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 only implied (diagnostics) and no alternative tool is named for connectivity/HTTP work, e.g. web_fetch. It does provide a genuine 'when-not' in 'Never probes private or loopback networks,' which narrows the applicable input space, but there is no explicit routing to siblings.

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