quick_check

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

The description notes that the tool returns 'scores and grades only, no detailed issues,' which sets expectations about output scope. With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden and could mention error handling or required authentication.

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 two sentences with no wasted words, immediately conveying the core functionality and use case.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context about what it does and returns. It could be slightly more explicit about the structure of scores/grades.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter ('url'), and the description adds minimal additional context beyond the schema's own description. The phrase 'URL to check' is straightforward, so the description doesn't significantly enhance understanding.

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 states the tool provides a quick site health overview with scores and grades only, distinguishing it from more detailed sibling tools like audit_site or audit_seo.

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?

It describes the tool as a 'fast way to triage a URL,' implying it's for quick initial checks rather than detailed analysis. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name specific alternatives.

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