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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reveals that the search is based on the sitemap and that the return value includes URLs with a match score. With no output schema, this return-value disclosure adds meaningful transparency.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and follows with the return type. There is no wasted wording or filler, and every phrase adds information: site scope, matching basis, mechanism, and return value.

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 simple search tool with strong annotations and only two parameters, the description is nearly complete. It states the scope, the search mechanism, and the result shape. It does not specify sorting or match-score details, but these are not essential for an agent to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the weight. It explains that 'query' represents words to match against URL paths, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly describe the 'limit' parameter's effect, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's name and defaults. This is adequate but not fully compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Find pages'), a specific target ('asgolfclothing.com'), a specific matching criterion ('words in their URL path'), and even names the mechanism ('sitemap search'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_page and site_info, which are about reading individual pages or obtaining site-level information, not searching by URL path.

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: use this tool when you need to find pages by URL path words. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contrast with siblings read_page and site_info is inferable from the domain-specific search statement.

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