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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about the output being an ordered action plan with agent-facing instructions, but it does not disclose pagination, permissions, or other behavioral details beyond the 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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the resource and then enumerates the return contents. It is somewhat dense but contains no extraneous sentences.

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 return values, and it does so reasonably well by describing ordered steps, pages, points, and agent instructions. Minor gaps remain around how many steps are returned or how points are calculated, but the core output is covered.

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%, and the single required parameter site is fully documented in the schema with an example domain format. The description only says the plan is 'for a site,' adding no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states that the tool returns a prioritized action plan for a site, including ordered fixes, pages, points, and agent instructions. It is specific about the resource and output shape but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as mttr_todo or mttr_brief.

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 the plan contains but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling tools like mttr_todo or mttr_content_next.

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