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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: result ordering (strong signs first), an explicit caution that a sign is not proof, and a convention for presenting quoted site text. It omits any note on pagination despite limit/offset params.

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?

Front-loaded with the concrete sign list in a single dense sentence, then two short caveat sentences. Mostly earns its space, though the trailing "Site text comes under 'quoted'." is cryptic and reads like an unexplained convention.

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, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description covers what is detected, how results are ordered, and how to treat them (signs are not proof). The only soft gap is return shape and pagination behavior, which the limit/offset params imply but the description never confirms.

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 all four parameters (including the show enum defaulting to 'strong') are already documented. The description's "Strong signs first" weakly echoes the show semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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?

The description names the exact resource (signs of generated text on a site's pages) and enumerates the specific indicators it detects: hidden/tag characters, left-in chat and markdown, unfilled placeholders, stock phrasing, heavy dash use. No sibling tool covers this, and an agent can tell immediately what it returns.

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?

It gives interpretive guidance ("Strong signs first. A sign is not proof.") and a note on quoting, but never states when to reach for this tool versus alternatives or what preconditions apply. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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