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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return shape ('match_type: repo_match/exact/parent'), ordering preference, and that root_path auto-detects the repo URL. It does not state behavior on no match or auth requirements, but 'find' implies a read-only operation.

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?

Three short sections: purpose, examples, and return semantics. It is front-loaded with the core use case and contains no filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and return semantics well, but does not state that at least one of repo_url/root_path is needed (schema marks both optional) or what happens when no match is found. This is a meaningful gap for a lookup tool.

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% and already notes 'preferred' and 'auto-detected'. The description adds concrete call examples and the 'cross-machine' rationale, which reinforces usage but only modestly extends what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource ('control plane page for a codebase') and a concrete use case ('locate your project's page on session start'). It is clear and distinct from sibling search/get tools by root-path/repo lookup, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('on session start') and gives two parameter modes with a preference for repo_url. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives like search_pages, so it stops short of a full 5.

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