Citable — monthly AI-mention trend for a domain

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses pricing, no charge on failure, statelessness, the index start date, and the one-call-returns-series behavior. This is valuable operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts: cost, statelessness, what is returned, and the data boundary. Each sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the return series, the domain scope, the trend calculations, and the call behavior. Cost, failure handling, and index bounds are also covered, making the invocation contract understandable.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some contextual meaning like the index start date, but it does not meaningfully enrich individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the deliverable: monthly AI mentions and AI search volume for a domain, with month-over-month deltas and a direction summary. It distinguishes itself from tracking-style tools by emphasizing stateless, one-call retrieval, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as citable_ai_visibility or citable_ai_share_of_voice.

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 context for when this tool is appropriate: a stateless prompt-trend lookup with no tracker creation and no polling. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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