Citilink Self-Check

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the tri-state result semantics and the critical distinction between transport-level inconclusive results and true drift. It also discloses that the tool opens a live page in the operator's Chrome and depends on CDP, which is valuable behavioral context not visible in the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential interpretation rules and return format. Every section earns its place, and the formatting makes the key distinctions easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool, the description covers purpose, execution environment, result interpretation, and return format. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need to explain return fields, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description reasonably emphasizes what the tool does rather than adding parameter details, which is appropriate here.

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 tool as a structural drift canary for Citilink, with the specific action of rendering one live search page and checking whether tiles extract. This makes its function distinct from sibling search/card tools and from other marketplaces' self-checks.

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 clear operational context: use this as a canary for Citilink drift detection, and interpret transport failures like Qrator blocks or CDP-down as inconclusive rather than drift. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the self-check purpose is stated directly.

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