cos_retrieval_cite

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

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it explains the consequence ('Cited retrievals get ~4× the weight when priority-learning runs'), warns about signal integrity, and describes the exact return format (`{updated, unknown}`). This goes well beyond the idempotent/readOnly hints.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, when to call, args, returns). Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. No fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential context: the purpose, the trigger condition, the parameter semantics, and the return shape. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without ambiguity.

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 provides only a bare string type with 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates. It explains the parameter format (comma-separated ints), the source of the IDs (prior responses from specific search tools), provides an example, and clarifies the meaning of the `unknown` return list.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Mark retrieval rows as actively cited by the agent.' This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from siblings like cos_retrieval_learn and cos_retrieval_quality by focusing on the act of citing after meaningful use.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Call this after using one or more chunks/patterns/tasks in a meaningful way') and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('do NOT cite passive retrievals'). However, it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it misses the 'alternatives' component for a perfect score.

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