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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true removal of the safety burden in that regard. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema: it returns link text and an internal/external classification, and it is positioned as a navigation aid rather than a raw scraper.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second gives concrete usage guidance. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool with optional parameters, the description is complete: it names the page scope, the returned fields, and the intended use case. Even without an output schema, an agent knows what to expect and how to use the two parameters.

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 describes path and gives scope an enum with a default, so the description does not need to re-explain them. With 50% schema coverage, the description only mildly reinforces the 'one page' idea and does not add direct parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 the exact resource (one page on sitemcp.dev) and the precise output: every link with its text and whether it stays on the site. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_pages, which would list pages rather than links.

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?

Explicitly says to use it for navigating the site instead of guessing URLs, which gives a clear positive use case. It does not enumerate when to prefer siblings like read_page or search_site, but the instruction is practical and unambiguous.

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