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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses tiered pricing ($0.05 first 25 pages, $0.02 beyond), that the price is a ruled sitemap total previewable before payment, that per-page failures are listed and excluded from totals, and that an all-fail run stores nothing and queues exactly one refund intent. The x402 payment mechanics (challenge on unpaid call, retry with _meta["x402/payment"]) are also spelled out, matching the non-readonly, non-idempotent annotations.

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-loads the core purpose and cap, then layers pricing, failure handling, and payment flow in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause carries operational information an agent needs; the trailing HTTP-equivalent note is the only mildly extraneous element.

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 paid, crawl-scoped tool with no output schema, the description covers cost model, cap, failure/refund semantics, disclosure model, preflight path, and payment handshake — everything needed to invoke it correctly and predict the failure modes. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented there. The description's only added param context is the 50-page cap and the derived /sitemap.xml behavior, which the schema already states, so it neither compensates for nor adds much to the structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — accessibility findings for every same-origin page in a site's sitemap, capped at 50 — and implicitly distinguishes it from access_scan (single page) by referencing the shared disclosure model. An agent can tell what it produces and its scope without opening the 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?

Explicitly directs the agent to call access_crawl_preflight first for a free exact price preview, which is a clear routing rule. It also separates itself from access_scan by scope ('every same-origin page in a sitemap'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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