List the domains assistants cite

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that results are ranked by citation frequency and that the project's own domain is marked, which helps the agent set expectations about output semantics.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding a distinct piece of information: what the tool returns, how it is ordered, and when to call it. The description is well front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 read-only list tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how the 'active project' is determined or what fields appear in each result, but these are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.

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%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters (limit, model, startDate, endDate) with enough detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline 3 per the rubric.

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 specific verb ('list'), the resource ('domains cited by assistants'), and the scope ('active project's prompts'), with ranking and project-domain marking noted. This distinguishes it from related siblings like get_citation_quality or list_answers because it is specifically about the domains behind 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 description gives a clear usage context: 'Call this to see which pages shape what the assistants say about the brand.' It implies use for understanding the active project's citation sources, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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