cc_errors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output type but does not mention any limitations, such as pagination, time range, or whether redirects are followed. The examples are useful, but significant behavioral details are missing.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Non-200 responses') and adds concrete examples. It avoids unnecessary words, though it omits useful context; but for conciseness and structure, it is efficient.

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 has two parameters (one optional), an output schema, and a set of sibling tools, the description is under-specified. It does cover the primary purpose, but fails to explain the optional 'crawl' parameter or provide any usage guidance, leaving the agent with gaps in how to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description provides zero explanation of the parameters. The 'domain' parameter is inferable from the description, but the optional 'crawl' parameter is completely unexplained. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource (non-200 HTTP responses) and scope (from a domain), with specific examples (404, redirects, 5xx). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cc_urls by focusing on errors rather than all URLs, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 intended use is implied: to retrieve error responses for a given domain. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites. This is barely above no guidance.

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