Compare HTTP user-agent responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: neither response executes JavaScript, differences are not proof of cloaking, and returned content is untrusted data — all caveats an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

A single dense sentence with the primary purpose front-loaded and three qualifying caveats packed in without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what a comparison returns (e.g. detected differences, text ratios), but it never describes the result structure. The caveats are valuable, yet an agent cannot anticipate the return shape from the definition alone.

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%, so all five parameters including the userAgent enum and textRatioThreshold default are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the user-agent dimension generically and adds no syntax or default detail beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb (compare) and resource (standard vs crawler user-agent HTTP responses), which is clear and distinct from the sibling tools check_discovery_files and check_crawler_readability. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, 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?

The description implies the scenario (comparing standard vs crawler agent responses) but never states when to use this tool versus check_crawler_readability or check_discovery_files, nor any prerequisites like 'URL must be publicly reachable'. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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