Detect Orphan Pages

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it performs a crawl, cross-references data sources, and outputs specific analyses (classification, hubs, coherence stats). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not disclose potential rate-limit or sitemap-missing edge cases.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: the first states the action and method, the second details the specific page categories found, and the third summarizes the output types. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing or wasted words.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what it returns (classification, hubs, coherence stats) and what it requires (a URL, crawling, sitemap cross-referencing). It doesn't detail the output structure or behavior when a sitemap is absent, but given the annotations and 100% parameter coverage, these are minor gaps.

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%, so each parameter is already documented (url, delay, crawlDepth, concurrency, maxCrawlPages). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it refers generally to crawls and sitemaps but doesn't clarify any of the parameters or their interplay. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb phrase 'Detect orphan pages' and a resource, then explains the method (cross-referencing sitemap URLs with crawled pages and internal link graph). It explicitly enumerates the categories of pages it identifies, which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like crawl_site or parse_sitemap, even without naming them.

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 intended use is implied by the tool's purpose: use it to find orphan pages or analyze sitemap/crawl coherence. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., 'if you only need a crawl, use crawl_site'). The description relies on the agent inferring suitability from the tool name and first sentence.

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