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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavior mentioned is that page content is not stored, which is a start, but nothing is said about what happens with the other parameters (e.g., are they validated, ignored, or do they alter behavior?). The tool's side effects and scope are opaque.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action, but it omits essential information about the numerous parameters and the tool's overall behavior. It is concise in length but not in effectiveness, leaving major gaps.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It only addresses URL status while ignoring the roles of city, feed, json, path, zone, query, ref, and host. An agent cannot determine what the tool does with these inputs or what the return value looks like beyond the minimal mention.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are cryptic ('discarded after the shape check', 'discarded after the call') and do not clarify how they relate to the tool's stated purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning, and the schema descriptions themselves are insufficient for an agent to know what values to pass or what the parameters actually do.

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 action (return host, scheme, HTTP status for a URL), but the tool name 'citation' and the nine heterogeneous parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query) suggest a much broader or unrelated purpose. It doesn't explain how these parameters fit the stated purpose, leaving the tool's real function ambiguous.

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 closely related siblings like fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, or domain-shape. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool.

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