Citable — keyword suggestions

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the paid cost per call, deduplication and ranking behavior, the sources searched, and the exact return shape including suggestions[], questions[], prominence scores, and source attribution. This is substantial behavioral context not already present in the 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?

The description is one dense, front-loaded sentence that begins with the critical paid-call warning and then efficiently conveys behavior, sources, and output structure. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explains the return format, scoring, sources, and seed-containment check. Combined with complete parameter documentation and annotations signaling read-only and open-world behavior, the agent has enough context to invoke the 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?

The input schema already documents 100% of parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about output structure but does not significantly enhance parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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 a specific action and resource: expands a seed keyword into autocomplete suggestions, related queries, and questions. It distinguishes itself from sibling keyword tools by emphasizing the seed-based, cross-engine nature, and the schema explicitly contrasts it with citable_domain_keywords for domain-level keyword queries.

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 makes clear this is for expanding a seed keyword rather than analyzing a domain, and the seed parameter explicitly says 'Not a domain' and routes domain-keyword use to citable_domain_keywords. However, it does not compare itself against close siblings like citable_keyword_ideas or citable_keyword_research, so the guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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