Citation readiness audit

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 well-covered. The description adds the valuable caveat that this is 'not a citation guarantee,' which manages agent expectations about what the score means. Given the strong annotation coverage and this added interpretive context, a 4 is appropriate.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence defines the tool's output function, and the second provides an important boundary clarification. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

This is a single-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotation coverage (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and a fully documented schema. The description adequately covers the scoring intent and the important caveat about citation guarantee. With no output schema and minimal complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage ('Public webpage URL'). The schema fully documents the only parameter, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the complete parameter documentation with no gaps.

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 uses a specific action verb ('Score') and identifies the resource/domain (whether the page contains concise, structured, well-supported passages easy to extract). It clearly distinguishes itself as an assessment/audit function rather than a citation guarantee, and the tool name 'aeo_citation_readiness' aligns with the described purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate from, and the scope is somewhat narrow.

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 explains the tool scores a page's citation-readiness, and the final sentence ('This is not a citation guarantee') sets an expectation boundary. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like aeo_extract_citable_chunks or aeo_ai_readability_audit, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance. The negative clarification is helpful but limited.

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