check_security_headers

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful trait — that it reports which headers are present/missing — but omits whether it makes a live network fetch, how it handles unreachable URLs, timeout/rate behavior, and permissions. Adequate but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the enumerated header list is front-loaded and the reporting behavior is stated in a compact second clause.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient: it names what is checked and that results are present/missing. Since no output schema exists, it could say more about the return structure (e.g., per-header status values), leaving a small gap.

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 the single parameter's schema description ('Public URL to check') already conveys the 'public' constraint. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('security headers') and even enumerates exactly which headers are inspected (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy), so the scope is unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling compliance_scan, which plausibly overlaps with security-header auditing, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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: an agent can infer it should be called when it has a URL whose security headers need auditing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over compliance_scan or any prerequisite (e.g., that the page must be publicly reachable).

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