analyze_citation_structure

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses quota cost ('Costs 1 quota unit/call'), return structure, and explicitly states 'Read-only: no side effects, safe to retry'. This adds value about cost and operational behavior that annotations don't fully convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return format, usage, cost, and batch alternative. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical and 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description includes the exact return JSON with types and constraints. It covers when to use, cost, parameter definition, and alternatives, making it complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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's Args section explains 'keyword' as 'the topic/query to analyze' with an example. This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Analyze the structural shape of the AI-generated answer actually cited for a keyword' and lists concrete details like leads_with_list, opening word count, sources, domains. It distinguishes from siblings by noting the batch alternative and focusing on structural shape rather than visibility or trends.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'before writing content meant to get cited' and gives an alternative: 'Use analyze_citation_structure_batch instead if you need this for more than one keyword'. Also mentions quota cost and safe retry, providing practical guidance.

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