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-related behavior. However, it does not mention network effects, redirects, error behavior, or how the many discarded parameters are handled beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 and easy to read, using only one sentence to convey the core behavior. It loses some points because it omits any mention of the other parameters, but the text itself is well-structured and not verbose.

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 far too incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It explains only a single URL-related behavior and leaves the purpose of the other parameters, expected output structure, and error semantics entirely unaddressed.

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 9 parameters have individual schema descriptions, so parameter-level meaning exists. However, the tool description only references the URL parameter and gives no indication of why city, json, path, zone, and query exist, creating a significant mismatch between the described purpose and the full parameter set.

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 and output: 'Return host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL.' However, the tool name 'citation' and the presence of 9 unrelated parameters (city, json, path, zone, etc.) make the overall purpose confusing and not fully aligned with the description.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like fetch-status, normalize-url, and web-fetch overlap directly with the described behavior, but the description gives no differentiation or usage context.

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