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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description earns credit for disclosing two things they don't: an asynchronous job-based return ('Returns a job to watch with mttr_job') and a rate limit ('at most once every ten minutes'). It doesn't say what happens if the limit is hit (error vs. queue) or whether a rescan replaces cached data.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose first, then the return contract, then the constraint. No hedging or filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the async return path via mttr_job, and the throttling rule, which is enough to call it correctly. It falls short of complete because the behavior at the ten-minute boundary is unspecified.

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% and both parameters (site as a domain, reason as a few words) are already documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('read a site again') and adds the precondition 'after it has been changed', which separates it from a plain read like mttr_site or mttr_crawls. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 trigger condition ('after it has been changed') gives clear context for when to call it, and pointing at mttr_job for the returned handle is a useful follow-up route. No exclusions or 'use X instead' guidance is given, which is the only gap.

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