get_site_citations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the paginated nature and the output mapping format, which are useful behavioral insights. However, it omits potential side effects (though likely read-only), rate limits, authentication requirements, or how filtering by keyword_tags might alter the 'all keywords' claim. The description is not rich enough to fully compensate for absent annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, both informative and front-loaded. It wastes no words, clearly stating the pagination and the keyword-to-URL mapping output. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It leaves out required parameter details, the meaning of a 'site_global_key', how pagination interacts with the mapping, and whether keyword_tags narrows the result. The tool's complexity demands a more thorough description to allow correct selection and invocation, especially alongside closely related sibling tools.

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, but it barely does. The term 'Paginated' gives partial meaning to page_limit and page_number, and 'all keywords' suggests keyword_tags is optional filtering. However, it does not explain the necessary parameters site_global_key, search_engine, and target_date, nor does it clarify the behavior of keyword_tags. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's structural properties.

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 it returns paginated citations for all keywords on a site, producing a keyword→URLs mapping. This conveys the tool's core function and output structure, and the focus on 'all keywords on a site' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_keyword_citations which likely target individual keywords. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_bulk_citations, which might also cover site-wide citations.

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 phrase 'for all keywords on a site' implies using this when you need a comprehensive site-level citation view, and the mention of pagination suggests handling large result sets. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_keyword_citations or get_bulk_citations, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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