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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses cursor-paginated rows, ordering by citation count, and the important nuance that an empty list may reflect an unavailable window rather than a measured zero. This goes beyond a basic description and prevents a common misunderstanding.

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, each earning its place: purpose, pagination/ordering, sourceVertical usage, and coverage state. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, it explains pagination, filtering, window selection, and a key semantic nuance (coverage state). It doesn't describe the exact structure of returned page rows, but for a cursor-paginated list that is often sufficient; the main purpose and behavior are well covered.

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 schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for sourceVertical (explains it scopes to a vertical with an example) and clarifies the cursor-pagination model. It doesn't add much for other parameters, but the added context justifies a 4.

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 and resource: 'Get top citation pages in AI search results.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like devtune_get_top_citation_domains by specifying 'pages', and further describes pagination and ordering criteria.

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?

It provides specific usage guidance for sourceVertical with an example ('for example the community platforms AI cites') and explains the coverage state to prevent misinterpretation of empty results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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