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

Goes well past the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by stating auth requirements ('Needs a key; any key reads a public site') and failure behavior ('a site or page not read answers not found'). It also discloses the important override rule that `path` causes the other filters to be ignored. Minor gap: no note on result size or rate behavior, but the safety and error profile is covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then organized under When / Instead / Inputs / Returns / Fails labels. The telegraphic style is dense but every clause carries information — no filler sentences.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the actual return fields (host, run, total, pages; path, status, failing, needsAPerson, linkedFrom, linksTo, quoted) and covering both error and auth conditions. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: it groups params by function (narrow / order / page) and, critically, explains that supplying `path` makes the remaining parameters irrelevant. That interaction is invisible in the schema alone.

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 and resource (listing a site's pages from its latest read) and goes further by disclosing the dual mode: a filtered list, or one page in full when `path` is supplied. An agent can distinguish this from clickd_check or clickd_brief without opening any schema.

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 'When / Instead' structure names explicit alternatives with the condition that selects each: clickd_brief for ordered fixes, clickd_check for a page as it is live now. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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