ai_citations

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: the tool returns the full set of instructions and the agent is expected to carry them out rather than summarise them. However, it says nothing about whether the page is modified, what permissions or rate limits apply, or how long the instructions are.

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, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the output contract. Every clause carries information; the only slightly decorative element is the 'GEO folklore' framing, which still communicates the sourcing stance.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the essential work of telling the agent that the return value is a set of instructions to be executed. It leaves the output format, length and the effect of region/tongue unstated, but for a three-parameter guidance generator this is close to sufficient.

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%, with region, tongue and subject each documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics for any parameter — it never mentions that subject accepts either a URL or a topic, nor how region/tongue shape the output.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Get a page quoted') and names the target surfaces (AI Overviews, AI Mode, ChatGPT search, Perplexity), which separates it from siblings like article_draft or schema_markup. The second sentence clarifies that the deliverable is instructions rather than an edit, though 'Get' is a loose verb and no sibling is named directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: you invoke it when you want a page cited by AI answer surfaces, and the 'rather than GEO folklore' line hints at the intended methodology. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against the seven sibling tools.

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