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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the search corpus (URL paths from the sitemap, not page body text) and the return shape (URLs plus match score). It says nothing about pagination via limit, result ordering, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the search mechanism front-loaded and the return value second. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-style search with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknown: what is searched (URL paths) and what comes back (URLs with scores). The omission of limit behavior and any notion of result set size keeps it from being fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the query matches words in a page's URL path, which is genuine added meaning over a bare 'query: string'. The limit parameter (1-50, default 20) is never explained or even acknowledged.

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 (Find) and resource (pages) plus the exact search mechanism: words in the URL path via sitemap search. This is more precise than a generic 'search pages' and implicitly separates it from read_page, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the search scope ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'), which tells the agent this is a URL/sitemap lookup rather than content search. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative such as read_page for fetching an actual page.

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