list_not_found

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: result ordering (most hits first), the normalization rule (path only, no query string), and how to interpret the coveredBy field. It stops short of explaining volume/pagination limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by field interpretation and a call to action. Nothing is padded, though the final imperative is guidance rather than description of the tool itself.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully documents the returned shape (path, coveredBy) and ordering, which is what an agent needs to act on results. The only real gap is the absence of any pointer to the sibling tools that consume this output (create_redirect / test_redirect).

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?

Only one optional parameter (site) exists and the schema describes it at 100% coverage, including the multisite default behavior and the pointer to list_sites. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for schema-carried semantics applies.

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?

Names a specific resource ('paths that answered 404 on the frontend') with a clear scope qualifier ('most hits first'), which is directly distinguishable from sibling list_redirects (redirect rules) and list_pages/list_content. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

It implies the follow-up action ('Create a redirect for the ones with real traffic'), which hints at why you'd call it, but never states when to use this versus list_redirects or test_redirect, nor any prerequisite like checking for an existing covering rule first. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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