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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior confession. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: it is a sitemap search against URL paths and returns URLs with match scores. It does not discuss sorting or pagination, but for a simple read-only search tool these are minor omissions.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the primary purpose本体, then specifies the matching mechanism, and closes with the output type. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool with well-defined annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what is searched, how matching works, and what is returned. Since no output schema exists, the return-value hint is valuable, though a bit more detail about ordering or limit application would make it fully self-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 carry parameter meaning. It explains that 'query' consists of words matching against the URL path, which is the key semantic. However, it does not explicitly state that 'limit' controls the number of returned results, although the schema's default and min/max provide some structural, if not semantic, guidance.

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 states a specific verb ('Find'), a concrete resource ('pages on blbestate.com'), and a precise search mechanism ('by words in their URL path'). It also notes the output ('URLs with a match score'), making it readily distinguishable from siblings like estate_search or read_page.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when searching site pages by URL-path words, as opposed to content or property searches. It does not name specific alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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