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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by clarifying that the search is limited to URL paths (sitemap search) and that results include a match score, which is not inferable from the schema or 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose, scope, method, and return value with no redundant words. Every clause adds information.

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, read-only search tool, the description provides the core information needed to select and invoke it: what it searches, how the query works, and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around match-score meaning and limit behavior, but the schema supplies limit constraints.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that 'query' contains words matched against URL paths, which is useful. However, it does not describe the 'limit' parameter's effect on result count/ranking or define the match score semantics.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Find pages'), a resource ('sunsetmixing.com'), a search mechanism ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'), and the output ('URLs with a match score'). This clearly separates it from read_page (page content) and list_products (products).

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 context of use is implied: use it when you need to locate pages by URL-path words rather than by reading a specific page. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools such as read_page or site_info.

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