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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and dynamic-data profile. The description adds the concrete informational scope of the read, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as freshness, rate limits, or output format.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists the returned content categories, and ends with a clear directive. There is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only orientation tool, the description fully covers what the agent will receive and when to call it. The annotations cover the open-world and read-only semantics, so nothing essential is missing.

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?

This tool accepts zero parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter-related details where none are needed.

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 identifies a site-level orientation resource and enumerates the specific data returned: title, description, language, sitemaps, robots.txt, pages discovered, and search-index status. This scope distinguishes it from the page-, link-, and search-oriented sibling tools.

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 instruction 'Call this first' provides explicit usage context for when to invoke the tool, establishing it as the initial orientation step before lower-level tools. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the site-level framing makes the intended starting position clear.

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