get_query_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'May require special permissions,' which hints at access restrictions but does not explain any other behavioral traits. There is no mention of whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very short—one sentence plus a permission note. It is concise in length but lacks effective structure. The key purpose is stated first, which is good, but the permission note is the only additional context and it is not front-loaded. The description is under-specified, so conciseness is not a virtue here; it fails to provide necessary details.

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 large set of sibling tools and the lack of annotations, this description is incomplete. The output schema exists, so return format is not needed, but the tool's exact purpose, the meaning of site_url, and how it differs from siblings are missing. An agent would struggle to decide when to call this tool correctly. The permission note adds a small but insufficient amount of context.

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 input schema has a single required parameter, site_url, with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention site_url at all, so it adds zero meaning to the parameter. An agent has to infer that site_url is the website to query, but even that is not explicit. This is a critical gap for a tool with a required parameter.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get URL normalization parameters.' This is specific enough to identify the tool's domain. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like get_url_info or get_url_traffic_info, which also deal with URL data. The description essentially restates the tool name with a slight elaboration, so it lacks the specificity to distinguish it among the many similar get_* tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes a note about permissions, which is not usage context. There is no mention of scenarios where this tool is preferred or avoided, nor any indication of how it complements other URL-related tools such as get_url_info or get_url_traffic_info.

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