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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety context is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the return shape { url, count, links }, a cap of 200 unique public URLs, and billing details including that schema-invalid input is rejected before charging.

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?

The description is three sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding output shape and pricing. The pricing sentence is dense but carries decision-relevant cost information, so little can be cut without losing 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 read-only, open-world URL discovery tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, output shape, scope cap, and billing. It could say more about how URLs are discovered (e.g., sitemap vs. crawl) and whether results are deduplicated across subdomains, but the essentials are present.

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 100%, so all four parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description only restates the 200 cap and optional search-term ranking, adding no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: discovering URLs of a public site, with a clear cap of 200 and optional ranking by search term. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as web-scrape, web-search, or web-extract.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like web-search or web-scrape. The mention of optional search-term ranking implies a use case, but no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions are provided.

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