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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, but it does not mention network access, side effects, lack of persistence for other inputs, or whether any mutation occurs. Most parameter behaviors are left to the schema descriptions, not the tool description.

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 and front-loaded with the primary action and result. Two sentences are easy to scan, and the safety note is placed after the core purpose, which is a reasonable structure.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not explain which parameters are mutually exclusive, how the output is structured, what happens when multiple parameters are supplied, or why the tool is named 'citation'.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters with descriptions, the tool description does not integrate them. The parameters span git refs, weather hints, feeds, JSON, timezones, and search text, but the description only explains URL-related output. The generic 'discarded after the shape check' phrasing does not clarify how each parameter relates to the tool's purpose.

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 opening phrase 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL' identifies a concrete action and resource, but the tool name 'citation' and the nine heterogeneous parameters (ref, city, feed, json, zone, etc.) make the overall purpose ambiguous. It does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The single sentence 'Page content is not stored' hints that it is a lightweight URL check rather than a content fetcher, but it does not name alternatives or specify conditions.

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