http_head

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention redirect following (though parameters exist), whether response content is stored, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to set expectations beyond the bare request.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words or repletion. It effectively communicates the essential purpose without padding.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what is returned (e.g., status code, headers, no body) and possible error behavior. It only states 'retrieve only headers' without specifying the response structure, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., query parameters as array of key-value pairs). The tool description adds no extra nuance or guidance on how parameters interact with the HEAD request, so it stays at the baseline for schema-complete coverage.

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 action (make an HTTP HEAD request) and the specific resource (headers from a URL). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'retrieve only headers', which sets it apart from GET/POST/other methods.

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 only implicitly suggests when to use the tool ('retrieve only headers') but does not explicitly direct the user to choose this over GET or other methods when a body is not needed. No comparison with alternatives is provided.

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