citation_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the output (series and deltas) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The mutation or safety profile is not addressed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output summary. No redundant information. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 adequate for a simple tool with no output schema, but it lacks details on error handling, default behavior (e.g., if no snapshots exist), and the exact structure of the returned data (e.g., format of the series and deltas). Given zero behavioral annotations and no output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by clarifying that the tool uses 'stored snapshots' and returns a temporal series with deltas, which helps the agent understand the parameter 'since' as a filter on snapshots.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'citation rate over time for a panel from stored snapshots.' It specifies the output includes a series of citation_rate per snapshot and per-query deltas. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling citation tools, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_citations or citation_evidence. It does not mention prerequisites, context scenarios, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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