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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it lists the exact metadata returned and clarifies that full text is intentionally omitted. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 with no filler: the first defines scope and content, the second states the use case. Key distinctions like 'without its full text' are front-loaded.

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 metadata tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete: it enumerates return fields, clarifies what is excluded, and provides a clear decision-oriented use case. No output schema is present, but the listed fields fill that gap adequately.

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?

The schema already documents the single parameter fully, including the path format and accepted URL form. The description adds nothing beyond the domain context (sitemcp.dev), which is already present in the tool name and schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: it returns metadata for one page on sitemcp.dev. It explicitly excludes full text, which distinguishes it from read_page and list_pages without requiring the schema to be opened.

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 a clear usage context: decide whether a page is worth reading. It implies rather than names alternatives like read_page for full content, so it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement but is still practically useful.

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