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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search and mentions discovery before check_site, but does not disclose result format, ordering, pagination behavior, or whether matching is case-insensitive. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a search tool.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage note immediately after. Every phrase contributes useful selection or invocation context.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should do more to explain what callers get back and how results relate to check_site. It covers the search inputs and discovery use case, but leaves return shape and identifier handoff implicit.

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 coverage is 50%; the query parameter is undocumented in the schema, but the description adds substantial meaning by listing searchable fields such as name, host, category, country, and verdict. The limit parameter is documented in the schema with default and max, so the combined coverage is good though not complete in the description itself.

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 and resource: "Find sites in the dataset" and clarifies the searchable dimensions: name, host, category, country, or verdict. It also distinguishes its discovery role from check_site, giving an agent a clear basis for selecting it.

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?

Explicitly says to use it "to discover what is covered before calling check_site," which gives a clear usage context. It does not explain when to prefer list_sites or when not to use search, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.

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