analyze_citation_structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: no side effects, safe to retry.' It adds useful non-obvious context about quota cost and free-tier limits, which annotations do not convey.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then briefly covers side effects, cost, return shape, and sibling alternatives. Every section earns its place, and the arguments section is compact yet informative.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description documents the exact return shape, including field types and the domain-list limit. Combined with the one documented parameter, quota information, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the keyword parameter. It does so by defining it as 'the topic/query to analyze' and providing a concrete example ('how to reduce churn'). This is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 states a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('structural shape of the AI-generated answer actually cited for a keyword'), and enumerates concrete dimensions such as leading list, opening passage length, and source domains. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming batch and gap alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: to understand what a winning AI-search answer looks like before writing content. It also names alternatives with conditions: use the batch variant for multiple keywords and analyze_citation_gap when the user has their own page and wants the gap.

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