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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the important limitation that matching is against URL path text from the sitemap, not page content, plus the return shape (URLs with a match score). It omits ranking behavior, result caps, and whether the sitemap is complete or refreshed.

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, with the core mechanism and return format front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 read-only sitemap search with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, matching mechanism, and return shape adequately. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter and result-count behavior.

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% for two parameters. The description usefully clarifies that "query" means words matched against the URL path, which the bare string type does not convey, but it says nothing about "limit" (default 20, max 50).

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 ("Find"), resource ("pages on blacklabeltec.com") and mechanism ("by words in their URL path (sitemap search)"). This is clearly distinguishable in practice from read_page and site_info, though neither 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to locate pages by URL keywords rather than to fetch content. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to read_page for content retrieval.

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