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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful behavioral note, but it omits other critical behaviors: whether network requests are made, whether the URL must be HTTPS (though the schema says 'HTTPS URL' in the url parameter), what happens when parameters are 'discarded', and whether the tool handles errors. The description also fails to explain the purpose of the numerous unrelated parameters, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified; it conveys one core action but omits essential usage details. The sentence is structured with the main function first, which is good, but the lack of other information makes it less effective. It is short but not sufficiently informative.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the role of most parameters, how they interact, or what the expected return format is. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly given the sparse description and the many ambiguous parameters that appear irrelevant to the stated purpose.

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% — every parameter has a description. The tool description adds no additional parameter context. Per the baseline, with high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate. The description does not clarify how parameters like 'city' or 'path' relate to the stated function, but the schema descriptions partially cover their meanings, so the description doesn't need to do more.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' This is clear and action-oriented. However, it does not distinguish this tool from several sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely perform similar operations. The name 'citation' also has a mismatch with the described function, reducing clarity further.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. With many sibling tools offering overlapping URL functionality, this lack of directional guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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