get_keyword_citations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval ('Citation URLs'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, data format, or what happens when no citations exist. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool name.

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 without verbosity. However, it omits critical details, so while structured efficiently, it sacrifices completeness.

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 four required parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain return values, parameter formats, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it.

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 provides no explanations for any of the four required parameters. It doesn't clarify the meaning of site_global_key, search_engine, target_date, or keyword_name, leaving the agent to infer from property 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 tool's function: retrieving citation URLs for a single keyword. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bulk_citations or get_site_citations by specifying 'single keyword', though it lacks an explicit verb and alternative references.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the function with no context about conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling names imply scope but no explicit instructions.

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