http_security

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries burden. Clearly states read-only nature (GET-style probe, no payload), no API key requirement, rate-limiting, and return type (text report with grade, issues, actions).

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?

Concise, front-loaded with core action, then details, then alternatives. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return content (grade, header findings, redirect trace, issues, actions). Given low parameter count (1) and complexity of security audit, description is 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 coverage is 100% for the single param 'url'. Description adds value by noting scheme default (https) and redirect behavior, going beyond schema. Baseline 3, plus extra context makes 4.

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?

Description explicitly states it follows HTTP redirects and audits security headers, grading A+ to F. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming alternatives (ssl_check, security_scan).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context (HTTP-layer/header posture) and when-not-to-use alternatives (ssl_check for TLS, security_scan for full domain).

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