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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by describing the return content: matching pages with snippets and two freshness timestamps ('when it was read' and 'when the page says it last changed'), which is behaviorally meaningful for judging result staleness.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler: the first covers action and source, the second covers the return shape. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a decent job describing results, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 2-parameter tool it omits 'max_results' entirely and gives no result-limit or pagination behavior, leaving a gap an agent would need to fill by reading the schema.

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 must carry parameter meaning, and it does not. 'query' is referenced only obliquely ('relevant to a query') with no syntax, matching, or required/non-empty semantics, and 'max_results' (default 5, max 10) is never mentioned at all.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Search https://sitemcp.dev/ for pages') plus the key qualifier 'relevant to a query.' This clearly distinguishes it from read_page and list_pages in spirit, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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' implies when to use it (retrieval by keyword rather than enumeration), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like list_pages for browsing or read_page for fetching a known page. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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