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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description adds what an agent would not otherwise know, namely that entries expose official API status and a ranked-tool count. It does not mention pagination or default result size, but that is captured by the limit parameter.

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, front-loaded with what the resource is before the filtering options. No filler; the only shortfall is that the filter sentence could have covered the remaining parameters for the same length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully names the returned fields, and it covers the two most semantically loaded parameters. With a simple four-parameter, non-required query tool this is close to sufficient, though with_tools_only and the limit behavior remain unexplained.

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must carry weight: it explains that query matches name, domain or category text and enumerates the api_status values. It says nothing about with_tools_only or the limit cap, leaving two of four parameters undocumented anywhere but their types.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (lists mapped websites) and states what each entry carries: official API status and number of ranked tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the siblings find_by_field or which_tool, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 it (you want the mapped website catalog, optionally narrowed by name/domain/category text or API status) but offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative. An agent must infer that lookup-style tools like find_by_field are for other cases.

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