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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. The description adds the 'sitemap search' scoping and the output format (URLs with match score), which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose any potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or exact matching semantics, so it only partially extends beyond the 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the output. There is no redundant information or fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, method, and output. It lacks explicit usage guidance and edge-case handling, but the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety reduce the need for more detail. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explains the query parameter as 'words in their URL path', which gives clear semantics. However, it does not describe the 'limit' parameter at all, though its meaning is fairly obvious from the schema (default, min, max). The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific resource ('pages on gcwars.com'), and a clear method ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). It also clarifies the output ('Returns URLs with a match score'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like read_page and site_info.

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 does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. Given the existence of siblings, this is a notable gap.

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