AI-citation losses per URL

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral context: the dependency on a configured citation-intelligence endpoint and the degraded-mode result (empty list) when it is absent, plus the shape of what is returned.

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 tight sentences: the return content is front-loaded, and the operational caveat follows immediately. No filler or repetition of the name or title.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, degraded-mode behavior, and return content. The only missing element is routing guidance against sibling tools, which is a minor gap.

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% for the single url parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about the URL's expected format or canonicalization beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and a precisely defined resource (LLMs that previously cited this URL but no longer do), plus the payload fields (prior query, last-seen date). This 'citation loss' concept is clearly distinct from sibling tools like posts_decay_curve, posts_snapshot, and posts_verdict.

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 discloses a usage prerequisite (a configured CITATION_INTELLIGENCE_URL, otherwise an empty list), which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as posts_decay_curve or posts_verdict, and no exclusions are given. Implied usage only.

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