cited_for

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses cache-based operation and no API cost. However, does not explain behavior when cache is empty or domain missing. Could be more explicit about error cases, but main behavioral trait is clear.

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 sentences: first states purpose and source, second gives usage context. Front-loaded, no wasted words. Efficient communication.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains tool's niche and when to use. Missing return format or behavior on empty cache, but acceptable for simple list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level information beyond what schema provides. No additional context for domain, since, engine, or limit.

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 tool lists queries cited for a domain from the local cache. The verb 'list' and resource 'queries cited for domain' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings check_citations and am_i_cited by noting cache usage.

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?

Explicitly instructs to build corpus via check_citations/am_i_cited first, then use cited_for to query cache without spending API budget. Provides clear when-to-use vs alternatives.

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