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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses only that 'page content is not stored,' but it omits other behavioral traits: the tool discards most inputs (as per parameter descriptions), makes no disk access, and likely performs network operations. This is insufficient for a tool with nine diverse 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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the primary action. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it structurally efficient but substantively incomplete.

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 and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It explains only the URL case and ignores the other eight parameters, the tool's name ('citation'), and how the tool relates to its siblings. An agent cannot infer correct usage for non-URL inputs.

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 coverage is 100% (every parameter has a description), so the baseline is 3. The description only implicitly refers to the URL parameter and adds no additional meaning for the other eight parameters, relying entirely on the schema's terse notes like 'discarded after the shape check.'

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: returning host, scheme, and HTTP status. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like fetch-status or normalize-url, and it ignores the tool's broader parameter set (city, feed, json, etc.), making the true purpose 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent select it over similar tools like fetch-status or web-fetch.

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