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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the default topic behavior ('all') and the fallback for unknown topics, which is valuable. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the nature of the tool implies it, and the description adds key behavioral traits beyond what the schema provides.

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 and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded and the argument specification following in a clean args block. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description is sufficient for a documentation retrieval tool. It explains what the tool does, the argument behavior, and the output format (markdown). Without an output schema, it could describe the return value more explicitly, but the 'as markdown' clause is adequate for the agent's needs.

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 provides no description for the 'topic' parameter, so the description fully compensates by enumerating valid values and explaining the default and fallback behavior. This is essential for correct invocation and provides substantial meaning 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 clearly identifies the tool's function: providing self-serve documentation for Cited in markdown format, covering specific topics like quickstart, MCP, REST, errors, and policies. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as cited_examples and cited_health by specifying its exact scope.

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 when to use the tool by listing the available topics, giving the agent clear context for selecting it based on the needed documentation. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the topic list provides sufficient usage context.

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