citation_freshness_score

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses it calls check_citations, collects dateModified, computes a recency score with halflife=365d, and returns per-URL buckets. This is adequate behavioral context for a read-only analysis tool.

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 concise sentences: first defines core action, second adds technical detail, third gives use case. Front-loaded with purpose; no wasted words.

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 params and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains input, process (calling another tool, collecting data), and output (score 0-100, buckets). Missing explicit bucket thresholds but still functional for agent selection.

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 covers 100% of 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds process context but does not supplement parameter meaning (e.g., engine enum, max_results cap) beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'score' and resource 'recently of pages cited for a query', clearly distinguishing from siblings like check_citations (which likely just retrieves citations) and other citation analysis tools.

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?

States the value proposition ('surfaces queries where AI cites old content') and implies the tool is for freshness analysis, but does not explicitly list when not to use or contrast with alternatives.

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