list_citations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-mutating nature. The description adds no further behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotation, but it doesn't add beyond it.

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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail.

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 parameter descriptions, the description must compensate, but it only describes the general output shape. It omits how parameters affect results, how grouping works, or any return format details, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with 3 optional parameters.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the parameters (limit, domain, measurement_window_id). The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning, which is a significant gap given all parameters are optional and their semantics are not self-evident from names alone.

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 identifies the resource (domains cited in AI answers) and the output (grouped counts and sample URLs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools. It lacks an explicit verb but the tool name implies listing, and the description is specific enough to avoid confusion.

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 implies a use case (inspecting cited domains) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_prompts or get_visibility_overview. No exclusions or alternative mentions are present.

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