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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety and external-access profile. The description adds 'returns matching pages with snippets' as a behavior but does not disclose additional traits like result limits, sorting, or external site behavior beyond what the schema already hints.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The action and target are front-loaded, and the return type is stated clearly. Minor redundancy between 'pages relevant to a query' and 'matching pages' does not detract from overall efficiency.

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 search tool with annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description is sufficient. It states the target site and return content (pages with snippets). It does not fully describe the result format, but the lack of an output schema makes the brief summary acceptable.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only echoes 'query' indirectly and says nothing about max_results. The schema's constraints (default 5, max 10) offer some clue, but the description adds no meaningful value beyond the parameter names.

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 the action (search), the target resource (https://sitemcp.dev/), and the outcome (matching pages with snippets). It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_pages, read_page, and get_page_info, all of which serve different purposes.

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 verb 'Search' and condition 'relevant to a query' imply this tool is for query-driven discovery. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus list_pages (broad listing) or read_page (specific retrieval), and no alternatives are named.

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