Check AI answer citations (Perplexity)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful context: the need for PERPLEXITY_API_KEY (auth) and cost (cents per call). It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, use case, and requirements. No fluff, information is front-loaded. Every sentence contributes.

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 explains the output content (sources cited, domain presence, answer text) and the API key requirement. For a read-only tool with no output schema, this is sufficient. Minor gaps like error handling or rate limits are not critical.

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 75% (domain and question have descriptions; model and country do not). The description implicitly clarifies the question and domain parameters but adds no detail about model or country. It provides marginal value 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 ('Ask Perplexity's Sonar API') and a clear outcome (report citations, domain presence, answer text). It is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on other aspects like robots, sitemaps, or Google data. No other tool addresses AI citation checking.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('see if the site is being cited by AI search for target queries') and prerequisites (API key, paid). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the uniqueness of the function makes the context sufficient.

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