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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral note (className filters return the full className), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering for what is a search tool.

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, front-loaded with the filterable dimensions and zero filler. It is efficient and well-structured, though the second sentence's payoff is narrow relative to its prominence.

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 5-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the definition covers what can be filtered but omits result-size/pagination expectations that matter for a search. Combined with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, it is adequate but leaves a 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 schema already documents each of the five parameters. The description mostly restates the schema filters (grouping q, type, className/classRegex) and only marginally adds meaning with the full-className return note, so the baseline 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) and resource (nodes) and enumerates the filterable fields (text/displayName/id, type, className). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings like list_site_nodes, get_site_node, or search_blocks, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Provides one concrete usage scenario ('use them for site-wide class audits'), which is genuinely helpful. However, it gives no when-not-to-use guidance and no explicit routing versus list_site_nodes/get_site_node, so the choice between siblings is left to inference.

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