citation-tracker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: free-tier limits of 5 calls per caller and 200 total per UTC day, both failing closed, plus what the result reports.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, followed by the rate-limit constraint. There is no wasted text.

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 still names the returned information: citation status, citation count, and cited domains. It also covers rate limits and fail-closed behavior, leaving only minor details such as exact error payloads unspecified.

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 schema already fully documents the prompt and targets parameters. The description only restates 'one prompt' and 'target domains' without adding syntax or format details 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 and resource: it sends one prompt to Perplexity (sonar) and reports citation status, count, and cited domains. The sibling tools are monitor management operations, so this check tool is clearly distinguishable.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use it to check whether a prompt causes Perplexity to cite target domains. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or when not to use it, aside from the rate-limit context.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what is destroyed: the prompt, domains, and results. It does not explicitly state irreversibility, but the destructive annotation and 'deletes' wording make the consequence clear.

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 two short sentences and front-loads the destructive action. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the required schema field, but it does not bloat the definition.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the deletion scope, and the required identifier; only minor details like behavior when the monitor does not exist are absent.

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 single monitor_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description only repeats that monitor_id is needed, adding no syntax or format details 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 and resource: it stops an existing monitor and deletes its prompt, domains, and results. This is clear and distinct from the sibling status/check tools, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings.

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 implies the tool is used to cancel a monitor, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of alternatives such as monitor_status.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description earns credit for disclosing the useful payload (remaining runs, next run time, runs so far with per-domain changes) since no output schema exists. It does not mention failure behavior for an invalid or expired monitor_id, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads what is read and what is returned, the second states the requirement. No filler, no restated title, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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 simple single-param read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields, which is the main missing structured information. A brief note on what happens when the monitor_id is unknown or expired would close the remaining gap.

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% and the single parameter already documents its pattern, length bounds, and the 'only credential' note. The description's contribution ('Needs the monitor_id') merely restates requiredness, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 for a high-coverage single-param 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?

States a specific verb (reads) and resource (an existing monitor), then enumerates exactly what comes back: remaining runs, next run time, and per-domain changes. That makes it clearly distinct from the mutating citation_tracker_monitor_cancel sibling, though it never names or contrasts either sibling explicitly.

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?

'Reads an existing monitor' plus 'Needs the monitor_id' implies you call this to inspect a monitor you already created rather than to create or cancel one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so selection guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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