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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful constraint: 'Page content is not stored,' which signals privacy/statelessness. However, it does not clarify why the tool also accepts host, json, and zone parameters, nor whether these are alternative modes, validations, or ignored. This ambiguity reduces transparency for a multi-param tool.

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: two sentences front-load the main purpose and a key privacy-positive detail. However, it is too sparse given the tool's internal complexity (4 parameters with likely alternative modes), so it trades completeness for brevity.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain how the parameters relate, what the output format looks like, or what happens when multiple parameters are provided. The clause 'Page content is not stored' is helpful but insufficient for a tool that accepts json and zone inputs, leaving the agent guessing about valid combinations and behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter individually. The description adds a summary phrase ('Return host, scheme, and HTTP status') that connects URL, host, and json, but it does not explain the relationship between the parameters or how json/zone are used, which is missing semantic context beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Return') and a resource ('host, scheme, and HTTP status for a URL'), giving the core function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., validate-json, normalize-url) and the tool name 'citation' is generic, so the agent cannot tell when to choose this over alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus others, nor any context on prerequisites or expected inputs. It only explains what it returns, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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