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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the indexing scope (sitemap pages only) and the return shape, which matters since there is no output schema; it omits pagination/limit behavior but the schema supplies that.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the search scope comes first and the return contents second, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter, read-only search tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the definition covers scope, query intent and return fields adequately. Only the lack of routing guidance relative to sibling search tools leaves a small gap.

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%, so the enum for lang, the 1-20 limit bounds and the query examples are already documented structurally. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ("Keyword search across every page in the privaku.com sitemap") and states the return shape (titles, URLs, snippets). It is clear on its own but never contrasts itself with the sibling generic "search" or "fetch" tools, so an agent must infer that this one is site-scoped.

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 phrase "across every page in the privaku.com sitemap" implies the tool is for finding pages on this specific site, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-prefer-"search"/"fetch" guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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