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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful corpus-size context, but says nothing about pagination limits, total-page caps, or what entries look like. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and the corpus size as supporting detail. No wasted words, though the trailing counts are nice-to-have rather than essential.

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?

Annotations cover safety, the schema covers all four parameters, and an output schema exists (so return shape needn't be described). The only gap is no clear routing versus the other sonic_* flavors, which the description could have addressed in a clause.

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% – each of the four parameters is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by naming the two sections and their page totals, but no additional syntax or semantics. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (reading Sonic Drive-In's sitemap) and even quantifies the corpus (298 menu pages, ~3,365 store pages). It doesn't explicitly name siblings like sonic_categories or sonic_locations, but the 'sitemap' framing is distinctive enough to separate it from those tools.

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 implies pagination ('one page at a time') and scope, but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance versus the many other sonic_* siblings that also serve menu/store data. The agent has to infer this is a crawl/enumeration tool from the counts alone.

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