search_sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (site cards with screenshots, URLs, awards, tags) and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, whether results are live or cached, or what happens when no results match. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose and the return value. It is efficient and free of filler. It could earn a 5 by also naming a sibling alternative, but as written it is appropriately sized and structured.

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 search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and return shape but does not explain how the parameters interact, what the default behavior is, or what the site cards contain beyond the listed fields. The sibling tools suggest a broader workflow, but the description does not position this tool within it. It is adequate but not complete.

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 63%, so the schema already documents several parameters (tags, color, query, sortBy, technology). The description adds the high-level context that these parameters filter the search results, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the undocumented parameters (page, award, count). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial 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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('award-winning websites on Awwwards'), and the key output ('site cards with inline screenshots, live URLs, awards and tags'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_site_details or capture_live_site, which target individual sites or capture actions.

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 implies this is the tool for searching/browsing the Awwwards site collection, and the sibling names suggest alternatives for detail, capture, or analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_site_details or analyze_page_structure, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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