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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), so the description adds the valuable behavioral context that this is a sitemap-based search returning scored URLs. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it does not disclose details like ordering or result-size semantics.

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 sentences with no filler: the action, scope, search method, and return value are all present and front-loaded. 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?

For a simple search tool with rich annotations, the description covers the domain, input semantics, and output shape well enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor omissions like how results are ranked and the behavior of the limit parameter are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that 'query' means words in the URL path, but it says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or how the match score behaves. The meaning of limit is left entirely to schema defaults and name inference.

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 concrete resource (pages on magstackonline.com), and the search mechanism (words in URL path via sitemap search). It also states the return payload (URLs with a match score), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools 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 implies when to use the tool: when an agent wants to locate pages by URL path tokens rather than reading a page or getting site info. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, leaving routing mostly to inference.

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