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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context of which resources are indexed but does not describe the return shape or whether it returns URLs versus contents.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates included resources. There is no unnecessary wording.

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 index tool, the description covers what is indexed but leaves the return format ambiguous. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about what the agent will receive would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 identifies the resource as a Maple.inc page index for agents and lists the included artifacts (llms.txt, sitemap, docs, OpenAPI, MCP card). It is clear what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling resources such as get_developer_resources.

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 phrase 'for agents' implies an audience but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a discovery/index tool rather than being told directly.

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