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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about selection logic: same market or nearest sites, closest in meaning, and passages returned under 'quoted'. It does not cover pagination, default limit behavior, or full response shape, but it adds some 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and stays reasonably short. The first sentence is dense and slightly repetitive, but the remaining sentences are efficient and the 'quoted' return hint is useful.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains the selection criteria and notes that each result includes a passage under 'quoted'. It could more fully describe response ordering or default limit behavior, but it provides enough context to call the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents site, path, rule, and limit. The description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing that the rule is one the page fails, and it does not explain the limit parameter further. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: finding pages on other sites that pass a page rule the current page fails. It adds scope details such as same market, nearest sites, and meaning-closeness, making the tool distinguishable from generic similar-page or rule-list tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'Worked examples for writing the fix' clearly signals the intended use case: gathering concrete passing examples when preparing a page fix. It does not state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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