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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (URLs with a match score) and the search source (sitemap), but says nothing about result ordering, partial-match behavior, or how the limit interacts with the returned set.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the scope of the search is front-loaded and the return contract follows immediately.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what is searched, what is returned) but omits limit semantics and ranking behavior. It is workable but leaves gaps an agent would have to discover empirically.

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% for both parameters. The description loosely clarifies that 'query' is matched against words in the URL path, but adds no detail on matching rules or on 'limit' (its default of 20, maximum of 50, or its effect on results).

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), resource (pages on michaelbarber.tech), and the exact matching dimension (words in the URL path, sourced from the sitemap). This implicitly separates it from read_page (content retrieval) and site_info, though neither sibling is named.

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 restricting the search to URL path words, which tells the agent this is a URL discovery tool rather than a content search. However, it never states when to prefer read_page or site_info, nor any exclusion such as 'does not search page body text'.

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