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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that results are a "bounded authorized source selection," hinting at result caps and permission scoping, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but it never states how bounded, how authorization is determined, or how paging behaves.

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?

Two compact sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the fallback stated second. "Bounded authorized source selection" is somewhat jargon-heavy but is the only thing carrying behavioral information, so it 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?

For a search tool with zero schema descriptions, no required params and no output schema, the description should explain result shape and pagination expectations. It gestures at bounded results but omits result size, paging semantics, and whether q is optional-and-returns-everything, which is critical given 0 required parameters.

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 0%, so the description carries the whole burden. "By text" loosely maps to q, but nothing explains the 200-character limit, matching/ranking behavior, or what the page parameter does (size, ordering, whether bounds interact with the "bounded selection"). Substantial compensation is missing.

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?

"Find existing organization sites by text" gives a specific verb (find), resource (organization sites) and search method (by text), so an agent can tell it apart from the ID-based get_sites_by_id family. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_sites or the sitefolio location tools, leaving partial ambiguity.

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?

It points to "the generic catalog" for additional filters or deeper records, which is a useful routing hint. But the alternative is unnamed and does not match any obvious sibling in the provided list, and there is no statement of when NOT to use this tool (e.g., vs get_sites for a full list).

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