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

Annotations already report readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description appropriately avoids repeating that. It adds meaningful behavioral context: the tool reports live sitemap counts and declared policies, and explicitly disclaims actual crawler visits. This clarifies what the agent should not infer from the results.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the main action in the first word and adding a crucial caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 status tool, the description covers what is read and what it does not claim. It is slightly light on describing the exact return structure, but the lack of an output schema is offset by the simplicity of the tool's purpose and the clear annotations.

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 fixes 0, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema already covers this fully, and the description's content about what is being read is not needed for parameter disambiguation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('live sitemap counts and declared search/AI crawler policies'). It also explicitly disclaims actual crawler visits, which distinguishes it from what could otherwise be confused with a crawler-analytics tool.

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 'Does not claim actual crawler visits' clause provides a clear when-not-to-use boundary, implying this tool is for declared policies rather than measured visits. However, it does not name sibling tools or explicitly state when to prefer discovery_status over them, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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