Find orphan pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the core behavior and consequence of orphan pages, but it does not disclose operational details such as whether the tool performs a new crawl, cost/latency implications, or what the returned data looks like. This is acceptable but not exceptionally transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and then adds meaningful context about why orphan pages matter. It is slightly wordy with the subjective 'highest-value findings' claim, but every sentence contributes useful context and it remains compact.

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 carry more of the operational context. It explains the concept well, but it does not mention what the return value looks like, whether a crawl is triggered, or any cost/latency caveats. This is a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about site or maxPages beyond what the schema already documents, which is fine since the schema fully covers parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find indexable pages that nothing on the site links to.' This clearly defines what an orphan page is and differentiates the tool from sibling tools like find_broken_links or link_graph without needing to inspect 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?

The description gives clear context for when this tool is valuable: orphan pages are usually reachable only from the sitemap, get crawled rarely, and rank poorly. It implies the use case but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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