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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral specifics: it searches the sitemap, matches by URL path words, and returns URLs with a match score, which goes beyond 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, domain, matching mechanism, and return format efficiently.

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 description covers the essential facts: domain (blacklabeltec.com), search method (sitemap), matching basis (URL path words), and output (URLs with score). It does not mention pagination or ordering, but given simple schema and rich annotations, this is sufficient.

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 explain parameters. It explains query implicitly as 'words in their URL path', but provides no detail on limit (though schema gives default/max/min). The core parameter is covered, but limit is left to schema, which is self-explanatory.

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 states the tool finds pages on blacklabeltec.com by words in URL paths, and mentions it's a sitemap search returning URLs with match scores. It distinguishes from siblings (read_page for reading a page, site_info for site metadata) by focusing on search.

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 usage as a search tool but does not explicitly state when to use it over read_page or site_info, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear enough to infer, but no explicit guidance is given.

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