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

Beyond readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, it discloses response size (a few hundred tokens), that the goal is used only for route selection and is never stored, a privacy instruction, a prompt-injection warning about untrusted registry guidance, and a post-run follow-up action. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema.

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?

Content is front-loaded with the payload description before the usage and safety notes, and almost every clause carries information. The phrasing is telegraphic in places ("Untrusted guidance from a public registry") and the sentence boundaries are loose, costing some readability.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the return contents in detail, including the route template, its parameter values, and excluded pages. Combined with the size hint and the report-link follow-up, an agent has everything needed to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that goal drives route selection and is never persisted, which clarifies why the field exists and reinforces the no-personal-details constraint. The detail enum's default and size implications are only partly echoed in prose.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: agent accessibility, the best known route as a URL template with parameter formats and known values, other pages, and robots.txt-excluded pages. That is far more specific than the name alone, though it never states a clean verb+resource framing and does not explicitly contrast itself with get_playbook or list_tasks.

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?

"Use it for things you can't see on the page: deep links, parameter grammars and codes" gives a clear when-to-use condition, and the closing line says to fetch the report link afterwards, which implies an ordering constraint. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to an alternative tool.

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