mcp-my-site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the content shape (Markdown plus metadata fields), which is modest value but overlaps the existing output schema rather than disclosing behavior like failure modes when only one page cannot be retrieved.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned; the second sentence carries the only invocation detail. No filler or repetition.

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 an output schema present the description need not enumerate return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile; parameters are fully documented. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about supplying neither id nor url, since zero parameters are required.

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%, and the schema itself states 'An alternative to id; pass either one.' The description merely restates that id or url comes from a search result, adding only the provenance of the id, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (returns) and resource (the full content of one page) plus the exact return payload — Markdown text with title, description, language and last-modified date. The sibling 'search' is only implicitly contrasted via 'of a search result', so differentiation is inferable rather than stated outright.

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?

'Pass the id (or url) of a search result' implies the tool is used downstream of search, which gives usable context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement that exactly one of id or url is required, and no mention of error behavior when neither is supplied.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: hybrid keyword+semantic matching, corpus size (47 pages), and that results arrive as pages with a short snippet each.

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?

Purpose and the fetch routing are front-loaded, but the embedded bio ('Serial entrepreneur and hands-on AI architect. I build AI and platform systems...') is marketing copy that does not help an agent invoke the tool and pads the middle of the description.

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 an output schema present, return values need no further explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description still adds corpus size, search modality and next-step routing. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the extraneous bio diluting it.

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 both query and limit (range 1-20, default 10) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource (hybrid search over a named site's 47 pages) and explicitly distinguishes itself from its only sibling by telling the agent to call fetch to read a full page. An agent can select this over fetch without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative (fetch) and the condition that selects it: use search to find pages, then call fetch with a result id/URL to read the whole page. Clear routing, though it never states a when-not case (e.g. skip search if you already know the URL).

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