get_bulk_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the max 50 keyword limit and the return format (keyword→URLs mapping), which goes beyond the raw schema. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like error handling, pagination, data freshness, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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 highly concise, consisting of two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: it immediately states the tool's output and key constraint (max 50) and describes the return mapping. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with 4 required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides the basic purpose but leaves the agent without context on how to supply parameters, what values are valid, or what to expect in terms of output structure beyond a vague mapping. The sibling tool list suggests site_global_key might come from list_sites, but the description itself does not mention that dependency.

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%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It only touches on 'keyword_names' implicitly via 'multiple keywords' and the max 50 limit. The other three required parameters (target_date, search_engine, site_global_key) receive no explanation at all, leaving the agent without crucial guidance on formats, allowed values, or how to obtain them.

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's function: retrieving citation URLs for multiple keywords in a single call. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning 'multiple keywords' and the max 50 limit, which sets it apart from single-keyword or site-level citation tools. The verb is implicit, but the noun phrase 'Citation URLs for multiple keywords' is specific enough.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you need citations for multiple keywords at once, versus making separate calls. It implies a batch scenario and highlights the 50-keyword cap. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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