Black Label Operator Website MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the output formats and the 40,000-character cap. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs output format and size limit with no wasted words. The structure is easily scannable by an agent.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and its constraint. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 0% and there is only one parameter, so the description must carry meaning for 'url'. It does so by indicating the URL should point to a single https://operator.blacklabelbots.com page, adding a domain constraint and purpose beyond the generic uri format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('page'), and precise output options ('Markdown ... or stripped text'). The 40,000-character limit further distinguishes it from sibling search_pages and site_info, which clearly serve different purposes.

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 clearly establishes this tool is for reading a single page's content rather than searching or gathering site-level info. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended context is evident from the verb and resource.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail by clarifying this is a sitemap/URL-path search and that the result is scored URLs, not page content. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the core scope and return value with no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

The definition is complete for a low-complexity, read-only search tool: it covers the domain, the matching mechanism, and the result shape. A note about limit behavior or scoring details could make it better, but the schema and annotations already carry part of that load.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description needs to compensate. It does explain that query terms match against URL paths, which is valuable. However, the limit parameter is left entirely to its schema type, default, and bounds, leaving a small semantic gap.

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 action: 'Find pages on operator.blacklabelbots.com by words in their URL path (sitemap search)' and names the return type ('URLs with a match score'). It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like read_page or site_info, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clearly establishes the tool's context: sitemap-based URL discovery by path-word matching. It gives enough information for an agent to select it for search tasks, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description adds behavioral content beyond that: the tool exposes links to sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. This tells the agent what kind of output to expect without contradicting the annotations. It stops short of describing output structure, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is adequate.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the key content types. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant repetition of the title or annotations. It is as concise as possible while being informative.

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, zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the essential context: what the site is and what resources the tool links to. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the described content (sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents). Exact return formatting is not specified, but an agent can reasonably invoke this tool for site orientation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, this dimension carries no additional burden. The description appropriately says nothing about inputs.

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 clearly identifies the resource as information about Black Label Operator and its discovery documents, sitemap, docs, and contact. While it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'provides', the purpose is unambiguous. It is distinguishable from siblings read_page and search_pages by its site-level scope, though this differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 implies this tool is for orientation: understanding what the site is and finding its key documents. However, it does not explicitly say when to use site_info versus read_page or search_pages, nor does it mention excluded cases. The usage context is inferable but not stated.

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