Cite from a web page

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

Beyond openWorldHint/readOnlyHint, the description discloses real behavior: it fetches the live page and extracts title, site name and date, and those values can be overridden by the optional params. It also describes the multi-style response shape ('each one with its style name on the line above it'), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits what happens on an unreachable or unparseable page.

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 purpose and style list are front-loaded, and the example prompt is a compact, useful addendum. The middle 'Inputs: ...' clause largely duplicates the schema and is the one part that does not earn its space.

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 an open-world fetch-and-format tool with no output schema, the description covers the fetch, the auto-extracted fields, the override path, the style set, and the shape of a multi-style reply. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the 'all' option and date format examples. The description restates the parameter list and override semantics without adding syntax or constraints the schema lacks, so the baseline of 3 applies. It also lists styles without harvard, which the schema accepts, though the schema still covers it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: fetch a web page and format it as a website citation in four named styles. The 'web page' framing implicitly separates it from the DOI/ISBN siblings, but no sibling is ever named, so the distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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 example prompt ('Cite this page in APA: https://example.edu/study') gives a concrete usage scenario, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over cite_from_doi, cite_from_isbn, or format_citation, and no preconditions or failure cases are noted.

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