get_url_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behaviors. It states it retrieves info and raises an error, but does not confirm read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. For a retrieval tool, this is minimal.

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 concise with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It avoids unnecessary detail and is well-structured, though the 'self' parameter omission reduces clarity.

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?

The output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, the description lacks usage context, prerequisites, and fails to document all parameters. For a simple retrieval tool with three parameters, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It briefly explains site_url and url, but the 'self' parameter is entirely undocumented. This leaves one of three required parameters undefined, which is a significant gap.

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 retrieves detailed information for a specific URL and names the two key parameters (site_url, url). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_url_traffic_info or get_url_links, leaving some ambiguity about what 'detailed information' entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_url_traffic_info, get_url_links, or other URL-focused tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios best suited for this tool.

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