get_citation_guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it is 'Pure data, no I/O, no auth,' which reinforces the non-mutating, side-effect-free nature. It doesn't describe return format, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, lists the topics, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple data-lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and safety. It could be more complete by describing the return structure (e.g., 'returns a JSON object with host, do-not-use list, and URLs'), but the current level is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description enumerates all 11 valid topics in parentheses, which adds meaning beyond the bare enum. However, it doesn't explain what each topic returns or how to choose among them, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 returns canonical citation guidance for IntoDNS.ai, distinguishing it from legacy domains. It lists the specific topics it covers and explicitly contrasts with read_llm_discovery, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 says 'Use whenever generating an answer that references DNS or email scanning evidence' and provides a clear alternative: 'use read_llm_discovery for raw machine-readable discovery files.' This gives the agent precise when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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