cite42_generate_content_brief

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

Annotations only cover safety (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial hidden behavior: per-surface metered billing in USD against a prepaid balance, charging only for successful steps, a named result field (cite42Billing), and a pre-confirmation cost gate. That is exactly the kind of cost/auth context an agent needs before invoking a paid, open-world 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?

Front-loads the verb and scope in the first sentence, then layers cost/billing mechanics. Efficient overall, though the second billing sentence repeats the cost-gating point alongside the cite42_pricing pointer, which a stricter edit could merge.

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, the description correctly states what comes back (evidence and a suggested prompt, not a finished brief) and names the billing result field. It leaves the structure/volume of the evidence payload unspecified, but for a 7-param, single-required-param tool this is close to complete.

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% and the schema itself already documents every parameter well (models billing/subset semantics, fullSweep ignoring models, per-surface character limits, defaults). The description adds no parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema, not the description, carries this dimension.

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 ('Run the content-brief workflow') and enumerates the exact surfaces it aggregates (AI answers, citations, SEO keyword demand, trends, Reddit, YouTube), which clearly distinguishes it from the single-surface siblings (cite42_search, cite42_trends, cite42_reddit_trends, cite42_citations). It also clarifies the deliverable boundary: it returns evidence plus a prompt, and the caller writes the brief.

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?

Gives clear operating context — when the user wants a cross-surface brief, and the cost-confirmation threshold for large runs (>20 calls or $5) — and routes to cite42_pricing for exact prices. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the narrower siblings (e.g. 'use this instead of chaining cite42_keywords + cite42_trends'), so the alternative selection is implied rather than spelled out.

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