Citable — domain organic footprint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate that this is a safe, live-data read. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: the paid-per-call pricing, the no-charge-on-failure behavior, and the specific ranking-index data source. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 four tight sentences: cost, output scope, usage routing, and billing failure behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation content.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the call returns, when to call it first, how to follow up with a sibling tool, and the cost implications. The input schema covers parameter details, so an agent has everything needed to select and correctly invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear schema descriptions for domain ('Hostname to profile'), lang, and country. The tool description itself only reinforces that the target is 'one domain' and does not add detail about lang/country defaults or formats, so it matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas without extra value.

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 tool returns one domain's organic footprint from a ranking index, listing concrete outputs: keywords ranked, top-3/top-10 counts, estimated traffic, ad value, and paid-search side. It names citable_domain_keywords as a distinct follow-up tool, so an agent can tell this overview apart from siblings.

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?

It explicitly says this is 'the first call for any domain question' and then directs agents to citable_domain_keywords for detailed ranking data. It also gives practical cost guidance ($0.03 USDC per call, not charged on failure), which helps an agent decide when invoking this tool is appropriate.

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