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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-destructive call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the metric definition (distinct analyzed responses that cited the URL), the recency field, and that results are paginated. It stops short of explaining ordering defaults or what the pagination envelope contains.

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 with no filler; the core metric definition is front-loaded and 'Paginated.' efficiently flags the result shape. The one loose end is the trailing fragment, which is terse but slightly jarring next to the denser first sentence.

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 aggregate with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the tool actually returns (per-prompt citation counts plus most recent citation date) and that it pages. It lacks only a note on default sort/pagination behavior, which the schema partially covers.

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 all 13 parameters (window, sort_by/sort_dir, page/per_page, tags, monitors, platforms, countries, interval) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no param-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and a precise resource: per-prompt citation analytics scoped to one source URL, with the computed fields (distinct cited responses count and most recent citation date) spelled out. It implicitly separates itself from list-source-url-analytics-tool by being per-prompt rather than per-URL-aggregate, but it never names a sibling to route the agent 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?

There is no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative despite a dense cluster of sibling analytics tools (list-source-url-analytics-tool, list-prompt-analytics-tool, get-source-url-usage-time-series-tool). An agent must infer from the phrase 'scoped to one source URL' which of the many analytics endpoints to pick.

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