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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details about token trimming ('Trims lower-ranked results and thumbnails; the top result and all URLs survive'), which informs the agent about response size and data retention. No contradiction with annotations.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding the input format clarification. It is concise and without fluff. However, it could have included a brief mention of the output format or example usage, but the current structure is efficient and focused.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential purpose, when to call it, and input flexibility. It also discloses token trimming behavior. It does not describe the response format, but given the lack of an output schema and the tool's read-only nature, this is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds the clarification that the 'name' parameter accepts both slugs and display names, which supplements the schema's examples. However, it does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it adds limited semantic value beyond the structured documentation.

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 states the tool's function: finding real sites that exemplify one of the 19 named macrostructures. It specifies the resource (sites), the action (find), and the input format (slugs or display names). It also gives context on when to call it ('at the macrostructure-pick step'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like find_similar or find_by_color.

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 description explicitly says to call it at the macrostructure-pick step, providing a clear trigger. It also clarifies the accepted input forms (slugs or display names), which is helpful for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools like find_similar.

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