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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds context beyond that by explaining the sitemap-based search scope and that it returns URLs with a match score, which aids behavioral understanding without contradicting 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 sentences deliver the core purpose, search scope, and return type with no filler. The most important constraints are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan.

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 low-complexity tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the target domain, search mechanism, and return format. Minor gaps remain, such as the meaning of 'match score' and the effect of 'limit', but nothing blocks a 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's bare parameter definitions. It does so for the key 'query' parameter by clarifying that it matches words in the URL path. The 'limit' parameter is not discussed, but its meaning is self-evident from the schema.

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 ('Find') with a clear resource ('pages on blacklabelbots.com') and a precise search mechanism ('words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). It also specifies the return value ('URLs with a match score'), making it easy to distinguish from siblings like read_page or site_info.

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 when to use the tool: when you need to find pages by words in their URL path. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the top score.

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