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

Annotations already cover safety traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world). The description adds useful context about the kind of content returned (links to sitemap, docs, contact, discovery documents), but it does not disclose output structure or other behavioral details. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and adds the key resource links without waste. Every part contributes meaning.

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 parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to know when to call the tool and what it will receive. It could mention the output form, but for a simple information tool 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Schema coverage is effectively complete, and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings it does not have.

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's purpose: it explains what Vigil (blvigil.com) is and provides links to key resources like the sitemap, docs, contact, and discovery documents. It is specific about the resource and scope, and it is easily distinguishable from siblings like create_checkout or list_products.

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 makes the tool's context clear: use it when you need site-level information or discovery resources for Vigil. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinct subject matter and sibling list make the usage context fairly obvious.

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