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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses crucial behaviors: read-only nature, idempotency (re-running cannot inflate), that engine answers are stored but not served here, and the meaning of an empty list as 'no check run yet' rather than 'never cited'. This goes beyond a basic description and provides valuable operational context.

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 yet information-dense, with every sentence contributing value: it lists output fields, states scope and idempotency, clarifies content exclusions, and explains list interpretation. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what is returned, what is not returned, and how to interpret results, including edge cases. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and expected output 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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter 'domain' with example (acme.com) and the description confirms it should be a cataloged domain. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond restating the context. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool retrieves the latest citation check per (question, engine) for a cataloged domain, listing the specific fields returned (question, engine, citation status, URL, day). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on granular per-question/per-engine citation data rather than aggregate domain lists.

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 clear context: it is for claimed domains only, is read-only, and returns one row per cell. It also explains how to interpret an empty list. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, though the context strongly implies its narrow scope.

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