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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that answers come as ranked pages from runboth.dev with a URL, a score, and a one-line reason, and that results are drawn only from RunBoth's own pages. This gives a clear picture of the tool's read/search behavior and output shape, though it does not discuss rate limits or failure modes.

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 longer than minimal, but every part earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives a useful topic list, an example, and the return format. The structure is a single block of text, but it is readable and not redundant.

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?

The description covers the main use case well and explains the list-mode return format, but there is no output schema and the generate/summarize modes are not described. Since the tool has a param with three modes, an agent might not understand how the output differs across those modes. Sibling routing is also not addressed, though the context is otherwise fairly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example query and clarifies the plain-language nature of the query parameter, but it does not explain the generate_mode enum values or the exact interaction between site and query beyond what the schema already states.

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 clearly states the tool lets users ask runboth.dev a plain-language question and receive answers from its pages with sources. It is specific about the resource and action, and the coverage list makes it distinct from the sibling tools list_sites and who.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: asking natural-language questions about RunBoth's documentation and behavior. It enumerates the exact topics covered, which effectively tells an agent what kinds of queries belong here. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong.

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