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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses cursor-based pagination, ordering by citation count, and crucially explains the coverage state (unavailable window not rolled up, empty list not a measured zero). This is valuable interpretive context beyond the basic read operation. It does not detail the exact response fields, but the provided semantics are sufficient for safe use.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the coverage-state caveat is placed at the end as an important interpretation note. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description should fully explain the response shape. It mentions cursor-paginated domain rows and a coverage state, but does not specify the fields within each row or the exact structure of the coverage state. This leaves some ambiguity about how to consume the output. Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional params), a bit more detail would improve completeness.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by giving an example of sourceVertical ('community' covers specific platforms), but this is already implied in the schema's enum description. No new meaning is added for cursor, pageSize, or windowDays beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get top citation domains in AI search results.' It clarifies that it returns domain rows, not pages, distinguishing it from sibling devtune_get_top_citation_pages. The ordering by citation count is also explicit, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 context on how to use parameters (e.g., pass sourceVertical to scope) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like devtune_get_top_citation_pages or devtune_get_citation_analysis. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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