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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only status, safety for retry, cost ($0.15/call), and the output structure (cited status, count, domains, model, structured error). This is valuable transparency for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, the sibling alternative is given immediately, and cost/safety info is appended cleanly. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, output fields, cost, safety, and a usage caveat. An agent can call it correctly without additional context.

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 the parameters are already fully described. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'verbatim' for prompt is also in schema, targets as 'your target domains'). It does not go beyond the schema in any meaningful way, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Sends one prompt to one search assistant (Perplexity, OpenAI or Gemini)' and lists the output fields. It clearly differentiates from the sibling citation_tracker_check by noting that Claude or multiple engines belong there.

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?

Explicitly provides a routing condition: 'For Claude, or several engines in one call, use citation_tracker_check.' This tells the agent exactly when not to use this tool and which alternative to pick. Also notes it is read-only and safe to retry, setting expectations for usage.

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