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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral detail of sitemap search and match score, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior or the meaning of the match score, which would be valuable. Since annotations provide the basic safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the key scoping detail (URL path search) and includes the output type. Every word earns its place, achieving ideal conciseness.

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?

This is a simple search tool with only 2 parameters and an output of URLs. Annotations cover safety and idempotency. The description explains the search mechanism adequately. Missing context includes the exact return format or scoring algorithm, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 clarify parameter meanings. It explicitly states that the query searches words in URL path, giving meaning to the 'query' parameter. The 'limit' parameter is left to schema defaults, but the description's mention of 'Returns URLs with a match score' implies result ordering. This goes beyond the schema's bare minimum.

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 verb ('Find'), the resource ('pages on blackwaterwindowcleaning.com'), the search method ('by words in their URL path'), and the output ('Returns URLs with a match score'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying sitemap-based URL path search rather than content 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 when to use this tool (when searching pages by URL path keywords) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling names (read_page, site_info) hint at alternatives but are not referenced. Clear context is provided, but exclusion criteria are omitted.

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