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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the useful scope fact that only public canonical pages are indexed and private apps/account data are excluded, which is not in the annotations. It does not describe result format or ranking behavior.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the scope exclusion. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say more about what a result looks like and how many are returned, but it only names the resources. For a 2-parameter read tool the essentials (what it finds, what it excludes) are present, making it adequate but with a clear gap around the undocumented limit parameter.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies that 'query' matches against URL keywords, but the 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 25) is never mentioned, nor is the 200-character query cap or what happens when keywords don't match.

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 specific verb and resource ('Find canonical public Fabricate pages') and adds the matching dimension ('by URL keywords'), so the agent knows what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fabricate_read_page or fabricate_get_plans, but the verb/resource pair is 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?

There is a negative scope note ('No private apps or account data') but no positive guidance on when to choose this tool over fabricate_read_page or fabricate_get_agent_guide. No prerequisites or follow-up flow are described, leaving routing to inference from the tool name alone.

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