Check response headers

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating 'Informational grades with explanations, no synthetic scores,' disclosing the nature of the output and that it does not produce synthetic scores. Yet, with no annotations provided, it does not fully offset the burden: it fails to mention network-side effects (e.g., it makes a request), error handling, or any authorization requirements, which are relevant for a tool that fetches URLs.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, the first listing the scope of inspection and the second clarifying the output style. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the categories of headers analyzed, and the output format (grades with explanations). It lacks explicit notes on network behavior or edge cases, but these are not critical for a simple header-checking tool, and the output description compensates partially for the missing schema.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter (url) with a clear format and example. The description does not add new semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 100% schema coverage.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('the page's HTTP response headers'), and it enumerates the specific headers it analyzes (caching, HSTS, CSP, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'measure_performance' or 'detect_tracking_tags', which focus on different aspects of a page.

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 context by listing the types of headers it checks (security, caching, CDN), which suggests it is used to audit these specific aspects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusionary guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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