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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that page content is not stored, which is a useful privacy note, but it says nothing about how the many other parameters (ref, city, feed, json, path, zone, query) are handled, including that several are discarded or used for checks. There is no mention of auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving significant opacity.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds one behavioral note. There is no waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 inadequate for a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema. It explains the return value for a URL but does not explain the purpose or handling of the other eight parameters, nor the return format, error cases, or any edge conditions. The agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the description alone, especially given the apparent mismatch between the description and the schema.

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 already has a textual description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond mentioning 'URL', which is a subset of the schema. Since the schema already documents all parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description does not clarify how the URL parameter interacts with the others.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: returns host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, which likely perform similar URL checks. The tool name 'citation' and the presence of many unrelated schema fields further cloud the intended purpose.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the output description alone.

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