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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape ('all public pages organized by category') which matters since no output schema exists, but says nothing about pagination, completeness guarantees, or auth needs. Adds modest value over the 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, zero waste, with the core behavior front-loaded and the usage/routing hint second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the intended follow-up call. Only the shape/detail of the returned map (ordering, fields per page) is left implicit, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single 'category' enum parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description never mentions the category filter, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data — baseline 3 per the schema-coverage rule.

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 ('Returns the complete site map of Trusteed') plus the scope ('all public pages organized by category'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_page_content by positioning itself as the discovery step before 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?

Clearly states when to use it ('Use this to discover what sections are available... and find the right path before calling get_page_content'), naming both the goal and the follow-up tool. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or naming alternative discovery tools such as search_docs or browse_categories.

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