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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return contents — each page's address and a short extract — which tells the agent what it will receive without an output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the action, the site scope, and the result shape with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the title alone.

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 two-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description supplies both the purpose and the return format, and the schema handles parameter detail. Only minor gaps remain — how results are ranked and whether searches can return nothing useful.

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%, with both query and limit fully documented including a worked query example and the 1–10 bound. The description adds only the loose notion of 'some words', so it neither compensates nor detracts; the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (find) and resource (pages of 313automations.com) and adds the shape of the result (page address plus short extract). It is clearly distinct from get_page and get_prices, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with list_pages.

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 phrase 'best match some words' implies keyword search rather than enumeration, which implicitly separates it from list_pages. However, the description never states when to choose search over listing, nor any constraint such as ranking behavior or empty-result handling.

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