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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a useful disclosure ('Page content is not stored'), indicating a stateless, non-persistent operation. However, it does not state whether the tool makes an HTTP request, follows redirects, or handles failures, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and a relevant privacy caveat following. It is concise and scannable, though it sacrifices completeness, especially regarding the json and zone parameters.

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?

Despite having four optional parameters and no output schema, the description only addresses the url-related behavior. The json and zone parameters are ignored in the prose, making the tool's full scope ambiguous. An agent would need to infer the tool's multi-purpose nature solely from the schema.

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 the parameters url, host, json, and zone are each documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning 'URL', and it notably omits the json and zone parameters entirely, though the schema compensates for this.

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 action ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status') and resource ('URL'), which aligns with the tool name 'citation'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'normalize-url' or 'http-status', so an agent may not know this is the right tool among alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as normalize-url, validate-json, or timezone. The description lacks any mention of context, exclusions, or conditions that would direct an agent to choose citation over its siblings.

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