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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds one useful disclosure—'Page content is not stored'—suggesting a safe, non-persistent operation. However, it does not mention whether a live network request is made, redirect behavior, error handling, or other side effects.

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?

Two short sentences, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the privacy-relevant caveat in the second. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how to choose among url, ref, city, feed, host, json, or path, nor does it distinguish citation from several closely related URL tools.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. Still, the main description only highlights the URL and ignores the many other accepted parameters, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names concrete outputs: host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It clearly states the tool's core function, though it does not differentiate it 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?

No guidance is given about when to use citation instead of related tools such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. The only implied context is that it operates on a URL, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives.

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