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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful limitation. However, it fails to explain the many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) that appear in the schema, creating a mismatch between the URL-focused description and the tool's actual inputs. This lack of transparency about the tool's broader scope is a significant gap.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the secondary note about content storage is placed after. This is an exemplary concise 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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain why the tool accepts city, feed, json, path, zone, and query, nor does it describe the return format beyond the three fields. An agent would struggle to determine the correct usage for anything other than a simple URL citation, and even that is ambiguous given the schema's breadth.

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 100%, so each parameter has a descriptive string, meeting the baseline. The tool description itself adds no context about how these parameters relate to the main purpose, leaving the relationship between 'citation' and parameters like 'city' or 'zone' unexplained. The parameter descriptions are clear individually, but the tool description does not enhance their semantics.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' It also adds a distinctive note that page content is not stored. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status, which might also return status, though the combination of host, scheme, and status is specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any siblings, usage contexts, or exclusions. An agent would have no basis to choose this over web-fetch or fetch-status beyond the specific output fields.

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