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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only notes that page content is not stored, but does not explain behavior for the other parameters, whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with nine parameters.

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 short (two sentences) with no wasted words, but it omits critical information about the majority of parameters. While concise, the structure fails to front-load essential scope details, making it inadequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It only addresses URL-related functionality, leaving the other eight parameters unexplained in terms of their role in the tool. An agent would have to infer usage from parameter names alone, which is risky.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, each explaining the parameter's purpose and discard behavior. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 for a URL (return host, scheme, HTTP status), but the tool accepts nine unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, query, etc.) with no mention of them. This creates ambiguity about the tool's actual scope, especially given the name 'citation' which suggests broader use.

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 its many siblings (fetch-status, normalize-url, browser-url-ok, etc.). There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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