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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful scope and content context by specifying that the result is a site map of canonical human-pages and REST/MCP endpoints confined to 'this host.' It does not overpromise side effects, and there is no contradiction with 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds meaning: audience ('agents'), resource type ('canonical human pages'), endpoint type ('read-only REST/MCP endpoints'), and scope ('on this host').

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?

Given the zero-parameter read-only list role, the output schema, and the safety annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation. It clarifies what will be returned (pages and endpoints) and where (this host), leaving no significant operational gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema is complete. Per the 0-parameter baseline, the description needs no additional parameter guidance, and the no-arguments call is self-evident from the empty input schema.

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 names a concrete resource—'canonical human pages plus read-only REST/MCP endpoints on this host'—with a clear listing verb and host scope. This distinguishes it from sibling pattern tools (get_pattern, list_patterns, search_patterns) by content domain (pages/endpoints vs patterns).

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?

'Site map for agents' implies this is the discovery/orientation tool, which gives context for when to call it. However, it never explicitly says when to use this over list_patterns/search_patterns or when not to use it, so an agent must infer the boundary from the tool name and sibling names.

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