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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful scoping note that results are limited to data visible to the linked Market Brew account, but says nothing about return volume, pagination, or result shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, no filler. The first sentence largely restates the title, which is the only minor waste.

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 list tool with no output schema and a nested query object offering many filters, the description omits return format, pagination, and default sort behavior. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would want filled.

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 only 50%: the required 'website' parameter has no description, and the description does not explain it or give format examples. The only documented param (query, with its filter list) is already fully described in the schema, so the description adds no parameter meaning.

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?

States a clear verb (list) plus the specific resource (Full Site Intelligence crawl seeds), and the product name disambiguates it from generic 'seeds'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like list_deep_crawl_seed_attempts or export_deep_crawl_seeds.

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 opener 'Use this when the user asks to list...' gives implied usage context, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over export_deep_crawl_seeds, list_deep_crawl_seed_attempts, or get_deep_crawl_seed.

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