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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and non-obvious behavior. It only mentions that page content is not stored, which is helpful but leaves out error behavior, network usage, potential rate limits, and whether extra parameters are actually ignored.

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 brief and front-loaded, putting the primary output first. It does not waste words, though it could be expanded meaningfully to explain parameter handling.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain the return format and any relevant edge cases. It only lists the three fields returned but does not specify whether they are returned as a structured object, how errors are represented, or how the strange extra parameters affect execution.

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 every parameter has a schema description, many are unrelated to the stated purpose (e.g., city, feed, zone, query) and are only described as being 'discarded'. The relationship between these ignored parameters and the actual behavior is unclear, and the description does not clarify that only 'url' is used.

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 primary output: host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. The name 'citation' is somewhat opaque, but the verb 'Return' and resource 'URL' are sufficient to convey the core purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or browser-url-ok. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback behavior, or cases where this tool should be avoided.

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