Citable — top AI-cited pages of a domain

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the $0.22 per-call cost, the no-charge condition when the index is unavailable, and the underlying aggregated AI-answer data source. It does not fully spell out the return shape, but it enumerates the main returned metrics.

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 earns its place: pricing, core query, returned metrics, and billing exception. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information and contains 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?

For a read-only reporting tool with simple parameters and no output schema, this description provides enough detail to infer what the call returns. It could mention sort order or the limit default explicitly, but those are recoverable from the schema and the phrase 'top AI-cited pages.'

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 both domain and limit. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline score 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 names the exact resource—AI-cited pages of a domain—and lists the specific metrics returned: per-page mentions, AI search volume, per-engine and per-language splits, and domain totals. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like citable_serp or citable_ai_visibility without needing to name them.

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 gives a clear intended use: identify what already works on a site to inform content strategy ('write more of that'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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