Send an HTTP request

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

The description discloses key behaviors: JSON parsing based on content type, manual redirect following (allowing re-check), 256 KB response cap, and refusal to private/loopback addresses unless env var set. Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which are consistent and the description adds significant value beyond them.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then technical details. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema, nested objects), the description covers return format, JSON parsing, redirect behavior, size limit, and host restrictions. It could mention error handling or what happens when response exceeds the cap, but overall quite complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter detail (e.g., mentioning JSON parsing but not linking to a specific param). Baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Sends') and resource ('HTTP request'), and clearly states what is returned (status, headers, timing, body). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools which are unrelated (text/crypto utilities).

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 usage for making HTTP requests via the web, and siblings are clearly different tools, so context is clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives.

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