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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it refers to the 'latest read', notes that orphan pages are omitted when the read stopped at its page limit, and clarifies that meaning-view proximity means similarity, 'never better or cited'.

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 and compact, with the three view modes clearly labeled and separated by semicolons. Some phrasing is dense and cryptic ('words', 'first way in'), but there is little wasted text.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what each view returns, and it does so conceptually for all three modes. It is not fully precise about output structure or terms like 'words', but it gives enough to understand the result of each view.

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 substantial meaning for the view enum beyond the schema's short labels. It explains what tree, links, and meaning each represent and what kinds of information appear in each view.

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 resource and scope: every page of a site's latest read, presented in one of three view modes. It does not name or differentiate from sibling tools such as mttr_structure, mttr_links, or mttr_pages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what tree, links, and meaning produce, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than a sibling, nor when to choose one view over another. It only implies view selection through output descriptions.

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