Citable — full citability report (bundle)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the lower burden is appropriate. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the exact cost, 'not charged on failure,' and the requirement that the prompt must be user-supplied and never invented. It does not describe output format, but for a read-only report tool this is a minor gap.

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 every sentence contributes meaningful detail. The price is front-loaded before the core function, which is a slight structural awkwardness, but the overall length is appropriate and each clause earns its place.

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?

Given the sibling tools that cover individual components, the description does enough to establish what the bundle includes and why it is priced differently. It could be more explicit about when to choose this over the individual tools, and it omits output format details, but no output schema exists to fill that gap. Overall it provides solid operational context for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the purpose of the domain and prompt parameters but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The optional limit parameter is fully documented in the schema.

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 this as 'full citability report (bundle)' and enumerates the three bundled components: on-page audit, AI visibility, and top AI-cited pages. It also states the three business questions it answers, making the tool's purpose obvious and distinct from sibling tools.

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 strongly implies when to use this tool: when you want all three audit components in one call, with a cost comparison to buying them separately. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, but the bundling language and pricing contrast provide clear contextual guidance.

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