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

Annotations carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, and the description visibly confirms 'Read-only' with no contradiction. Beyond annotations it adds real behavioral facts: the sort order (fewest-inlinks first) and the 'Hard cap 100 rows' limit. These are useful operational behaviors not derivable from the structured fields.

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?

A single dense paragraph with zero waste: purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, followed by filters, then the sort behavior, row cap, and read-only note. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-relevant facts (scope, discoverability framing, cap) come first.

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 an all-optional-parameter filtered-list tool with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is complete: it covers scope, filters, sort order, row cap, and read-only status. With no output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return shape, though naming the sibling for link-level detail would have been marginally stronger.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself is unusually rich (e.g., path_prefix vs path_contains over-matching tradeoff is already documented there). The description names the filter set but mostly restates what the schema already explains, adding little new semantic value. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: 'Filterable inventory of every sitemap-listed page' with an explicit list of returned facts (title, meta description, canonical, h1, word count, JSON-LD, inlink/outlink counts). The 'from the weekly crawl' qualifier distinguishes it from GSC-sourced siblings like fleet_gsc_top_pages and fleet_analytics_top_pages, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clear usage context: 'the pages Google cannot discover float to the top' frames it as an SEO-discovery/audit tool, and the named filters (orphans_only, max_word_count, missing_meta) signal the discovery use cases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the weekly-crawl vs GSC distinction is implied. A clear exclusions clause would push this to 5.

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