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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful substance about what dimensions are measured, but says nothing about freshness, whether it triggers a crawl, latency, or cost — the traits an agent actually needs for an analysis 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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the four measured dimensions are listed up front. It is a sentence fragment rather than a statement of action, which slightly weakens the front-loading of a verb.

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 should convey the shape and nature of the result; it does list the metrics but omits whether the response is per-section, how depth is bucketed, and whether a prior crawl is required. Adequate but with real gaps for an analysis tool in a 60-sibling namespace.

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 both `site` and `links` are documented in the schema, including the content/all enum and the default. The description mentions links between sections but does not clarify the content-vs-all distinction, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3.

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 names a specific resource (a site's structure) and enumerates what it contains: sections, click depth from the home page, share of each section linked from content, and inter-section links. That is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of differentiating from siblings like mttr_site, mttr_map, or mttr_pages, which also sound structural.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus mttr_site, mttr_map, mttr_pages, or mttr_brief, nor any prerequisite such as needing a completed crawl. The agent must infer the use case from the noun phrase alone.

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