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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the ranking rule ('best match first') and a result cap tied to `limit`, but says nothing about empty-result behavior, matching semantics (stemming/fuzzy), or scoring. Useful but modest value beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by scope and return shape. The long parenthetical sitemap enumeration is informative but borderline bloated; a shorter scope phrase would have carried most of the same value.

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 two-parameter read-only search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies scope, result shape, and ranking order. The main missing piece is routing guidance versus the many topical siblings, which matters given the overlap.

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%, with both `query` and `limit` documented including bounds and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates 'by words' and 'up to `limit` pages' without adding syntax, phrasing tips, or matching rules.

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 and resource ('Find pages on sjstorage.net by words') and scopes the corpus to the full sitemap with a concrete enumeration of page types. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_faq or get_units_and_prices, which cover topics it explicitly claims to include.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by words' plus the example query 'what fits in a 12x30', suggesting free-text keyword lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_faq, get_units_and_prices, or get_contact, even though the enumerated page types overlap heavily with those siblings.

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