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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the output is Markdown and is written to be acted on, with a stated structure covering priority, method, rationale, and pages. It does not discuss pagination or limits, but adds meaningful return-content context for a read-only tool.

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 definition is tightly front-loaded: it names the resource and format first, then lists the actionable contents. "Start here" is short and useful, and every part of the description earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and entry-point usage. It does not need to explain safety semantics already covered by annotations, though it could be stronger with a note on how it relates to adjacent planning or queue tools.

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?

There is only one parameter, and its schema description fully documents it as a domain such as example.com. The description says "for a site" but does not add format or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource: a Markdown fix list for a site, with specific contents including what to fix, order, method, rationale, and affected pages. It is more specific than the title alone, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as mttr_plan, mttr_todo, or mttr_queue.

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?

"Start here" gives a clear entry-point recommendation and implies this should be used before other tools. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full explicit routing guidance.

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