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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that page content is not stored, which is useful, but it does not mention that a network request may be made, potential failure modes, or how invalid URLs are handled.

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-loads the core output. It does not waste words, though it could benefit from a brief usage example or input clarification.

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?

With 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify which parameter should be provided, whether multiple parameters are accepted, or the exact structure of the returned host/scheme/status data.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, most are irrelevant or confusing for a URL-status tool. Properties like 'ref', 'city', 'feed', 'json', 'zone', and 'query' have descriptions unrelated to returning host/scheme/status, and all parameters are optional with no indication of which is required.

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 returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL, and adds a meaningful note that page content is not stored. It is specific about the primary output, though the name 'citation' is somewhat opaque and overlap with sibling fetch/status tools isn't explicitly addressed.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The note about not storing page content hints at a use case but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool.

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