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

The description discloses that page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy note, but it fails to mention that the tool appears to handle multiple input types (ref, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) based on the schema. The description only covers the URL case, leaving the behavior for other parameters opaque. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and under-delivers.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding a privacy note. There is zero wasted language, and it is easy to parse at a glance.

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 tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description only explains behavior for the 'url' parameter. It does not describe what happens for other parameters, nor does it detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure). Given the tool's apparent multi-purpose nature, the description is far from complete for an agent to use all capabilities correctly.

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 each parameter is documented in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond what the schema provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3. It does not explain how the parameters relate or which to use in which scenario.

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 (return) and resource (host, scheme, and HTTP status) for a URL, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like normalize-url or web-fetch. The action and scope are unambiguous, even though the tool name 'citation' is unusual.

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 or browser-url-ok. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool over its siblings.

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