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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one real behavioral fact — className filters return the full className rather than a truncated value — but omits pagination, result caps, ordering, and the fact the schema says id must be passed on every call. Adequate, not rich.

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, zero filler, and the filter enumeration is front-loaded before the className-audit tip. Nothing repeats the title or wastes tokens.

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 read-only search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what can be matched and one concrete use case. Missing result-set behavior (limits, paging, whether multiple filters intersect) keeps it short of complete.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including the classRegex example 'py-(8|12)'). The description restates the filter mapping without adding syntax or precedence rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (find) plus resource (nodes) and enumerates the three filter dimensions (q, type, className), so the agent knows exactly what matching is supported. It doesn't explicitly contrast with list_site_nodes or get_site_node, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

One usage cue is given — className filters are 'for site-wide class audits' — which is genuinely actionable. There is no when-not guidance, no mention of the alternative list_site_nodes for unfiltered enumeration, and no note that filters combine (AND vs OR).

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