get_citation_guidance

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

Despite no annotations, the description states 'Pure data, no I/O, no auth', fully disclosing the tool's read-only, side-effect-free nature. It also details the return content, ensuring the agent understands the behavior.

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 two sentences, each essential and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant words, and the structure is clear despite being prose.

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?

Given the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: return value, usage context, and alternative tool, leaving no gaps.

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?

The sole parameter 'topic' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description lists all 11 enum values with contextual examples, adding meaning beyond the bare enum names. However, it could provide more detailed explanations for each topic.

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 that the tool returns canonical citation guidance for IntoDNS.ai, specifically the host, do-not-use list, and preferred citation URLs for a given topic. It enumerates all valid topics, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from legacy sites.

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 explicitly advises to use this tool when generating answers referencing DNS or email scanning evidence, and contrasts it with read_llm_discovery for raw machine-readable discovery files, providing clear context for when to use and when not to.

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