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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Page content is not stored' is a useful behavioral guarantee, but the description omits other relevant traits such as side effects, permissions, or how the extra input parameters are treated beyond what the schema already says.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the core behavior, and every sentence earns its place. The non-storage sentence adds meaningful behavioral context without padding.

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 seven varied parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It tells the agent what is returned, but not which inputs are required or how the unrelated-looking parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path) relate to the citation behavior. The schema helps, but the description alone leaves too much to inference.

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?

All seven parameters already have descriptions in the input schema, so the schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions 'a URL' but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; it does not clarify the relationship between url, host, json, and the other fields.

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 output ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL') and adds a clarifying non-storage guarantee. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fetch-status or normalize-url, so it falls short of a 5.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as fetch-status, normalize-url, or web-fetch. The non-storage note implies a privacy-conscious use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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