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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), lowering the bar. The description adds return-format context ('Returns URLs with a match score') and the search mechanism, but omits match-score semantics, sort order, and empty-result behavior. 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 sentences, zero filler. The action and scope are front-loaded in sentence one, and the return format is stated succinctly in sentence two. Every word 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains return values (URLs + match score), which is good. But for a search tool, the absence of match-score interpretation, result ordering, and no-results behavior leaves an agent guessing about how to use results. Adequate, with 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 does explain 'query' as a URL-path word search, adding real meaning. However, 'limit' is left completely unexplained; it is only partially rescued by the schema's min/max/default constraints, which hint at result-count limiting but not at truncation or pagination behavior.

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'), a precise resource ('pages on sign.blacklabeltec.com'), and a distinctive method ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings read_page and site_info — an agent can tell it searches URLs rather than reading content or fetching site metadata.

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 the usage context — search by URL path words when you don't have an exact URL — but never explicitly contrasts it with read_page or site_info. No exclusions or 'use X instead when...' guidance is given, leaving routing between siblings to inference.

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