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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful side-effect guarantee, but it does not state whether a network request is made, how errors or redirects are handled, or what exact output format is returned.

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 no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded and the side-effect statement earns its place. This is an appropriately concise description.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. It leaves ambiguity about which parameters are actually used, what response format to expect, and how it should be selected among the many sibling URL/status 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?

Parameter descriptions in the schema already cover 100% of the nine optional fields, so the baseline is met. The description adds some meaning for url by indicating the output fields, but it does not clarify how the other eight parameters relate to the URL-focused behavior.

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 names a concrete operation: return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. It is more specific than just saying 'citation' and points toward a lightweight URL inspection, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling status/URL tools or explain why it is called citation.

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 prefer this tool over siblings such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The non-storage note hints that it is not for content retrieval, but there is no explicit when/when-not condition or alternative routing.

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