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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('URLs with a match score') and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about result ordering, pagination, rate limits, or whether the index is live versus cached.

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, zero filler, with the scope of the search front-loaded before the return-value note. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only briefly sketches the return value (URLs plus a match score), leaving ordering and pagination unexplained. For a simple two-parameter search tool with no annotations, this is adequate but has identifiable gaps.

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 compensate. It usefully clarifies that 'query' matches words in the URL path rather than page body text, which is non-obvious, but it says nothing about 'limit' (its cap of 50, default of 20, or what happens when it is omitted).

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 pages on blacklabelbots.com') and scopes the mechanism ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). This implicitly separates it from read_page (which retrieves a page's content rather than discovering pages), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The agent must infer that this is a discovery step that would typically be followed by read_page, but nothing in the text says so.

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