Check Online Docs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true/false. The description adds context about fetching URLs and targeting local-access documentation, which supplements the annotations without contradiction. The added value is moderate but not critical.

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 concise sentences: first states core purpose, second provides usage guidance, third addresses sibling context. No repetition or unnecessary details; every sentence adds value.

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 simple structure (1 enum param, full schema coverage, existing output schema, and detailed annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter context. It is fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter 'source' is fully defined in the input schema with enum values and descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get URLs' and the resource 'Victron local-access documentation sources'. It distinguishes this tool from the sibling victron_search_docs by specifying its use case, achieving high specificity and differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('only when victron_search_docs does not have the answer') with concrete examples, and advises against using it for VRM cloud API docs by directing to a sibling package. No ambiguity.

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