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

With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds useful behavioral context: it is a sitemap-based URL-path search and returns URLs with a match score. It does not cover no-result behavior or ranking details, but the safety profile is already handled by annotations.

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 sentences with no filler: the first fronts the action and scoping, the second states the return value. Every clause adds useful information for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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?

Given the low complexity, rich annotations, and no output schema, this description is complete enough: an agent knows what it searches, how it searches, and what it returns. The only minor omissions, explicit sibling comparison and limit semantics, are covered elsewhere or are not essential to invoking this tool correctly.

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 for parameter meaning. It explains the query parameter as words in the URL path, but it does not describe the limit parameter's effect on result count or how the match score relates to the query. The schema provides types and bounds, but not semantics.

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 verb ('Find'), a concrete resource (pages on michaelbarber.tech), and a precise matching mechanism ('words in their URL path'). It also states the output ('URLs with a match score'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools read_page and site_info.

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 description makes the use case clear: locate pages by URL-path words via sitemap search, rather than reading a specific page or getting site-level info. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternatives like read_page or site_info.

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