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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, lowering the bar. The description adds useful behavioral context: it searches URL paths rather than page content and returns URLs with a match score. It does not cover ordering or pagination, but that is acceptable for a safe read-only search.

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 definition is two compact sentences: the first front-loads the action, target, and matching mechanism; the second states the return value. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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, robust read-only/idempotent annotations, and a clear statement of inputs and outputs, the description is complete for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the return shape is explicitly summarized as URLs with a match score.

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 clarify parameters. It effectively explains that 'query' contains words to match against URL paths. The 'limit' parameter remains covered by the schema's default/min/max, which is sufficient for a simple integer bound.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find'), identifies the resource ('pages on ace-bl.tech'), and states the search mechanism ('by words in their URL path (sitemap search)'). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like read_page or list_products.

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 sitemap-search framing implies the intended use case, but the description does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it. There are no named alternatives or exclusions, leaving routing partially to inference.

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