citation_leaders

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses cost ('Costs 10 quota units/call'), safety ('no side effects, safe to retry'), and platform limitations. It also clarifies the return schema changes when compare_domain is passed. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Every sentence adds value. Uses clear headers (Args, Returns), lists platform options, and keeps sentences concise. Structured logically from high-level purpose to parameter details. 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 moderately complex tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by describing return types, default values, provider limitations, and a practical use case. It leaves no ambiguity about invocation or expected results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: keyword's purpose, platform's allowed values/defaults, and compare_domain's behavior. Also explains the response structure, fully compensating for the lack of schema 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 provides a specific verb+resource statement: 'Find which domains dominate AI-answer citations for a topic/keyword'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling check_ai_visibility by stating when to use each, and the tool name matches its function.

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 names the alternative tool: 'Use check_ai_visibility instead if you already know which domain...' It also gives contextual guidance on platform availability ('Perplexity and Gemini aren't available') and the optional compare_domain parameter purpose.

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