Citable — on-page SEO audit

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

The description discloses the paid nature ($0.01 USDC per call) and the no-charge condition if the page cannot be fetched — important behavioral information not present in annotations. It also includes a comprehensive list of returned data elements, giving the agent a full picture of what to expect. The readOnlyHint is consistent with 'fetches' and openWorldHint with external URL access, so no contradiction.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the cost and core function, then lists outputs and conditions efficiently. Every word adds value, making it highly scannable for an agent.

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, so the description must fully enumerate return values — it does, listing all key audit components and the scoring system. It also covers cost, no-charge behavior, and alternative tools, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it 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 provides a complete description of the 'url' parameter, including the requirement for an absolute http(s) URL and the note about domain-level tools. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 is explicit: 'Fetches one URL and returns a scored on-page audit' and enumerates the exact outputs (title, meta description, canonical, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that domain-level views should use citable_domain_overview or citable_citability_report, making its scope unambiguous.

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 clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (single URL audit) and when not to, explicitly naming alternative tools for domain-level queries. This is direct guidance that prevents misuse and corrects potential confusion.

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