verify_live

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

Annotations are absent, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states it checks live HTML with cache bypass, but does not disclose what happens on errors (e.g., site down), rate limits, or whether multiple URLs are checked concurrently. The return format is not hinted.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and conditions. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding.

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?

Tool has no output schema and three parameters, yet description omits return value details, error handling, and concurrency behavior. Without annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate tool behavior.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (urls, contains, notContains). The description adds cache bypass context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks live HTML of sites for presence/absence of substrings, with cache bypass. Verb 'check', resource 'live HTML', and specific condition (substrings) are all present, distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with pages, projects, or metrics.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'cache bypass' implies it fetches fresh content, but there is no comparison with siblings like 'get_page' or 'chrome_status'. Usage context is implied but not clarified.

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