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

The annotations already disclose mutation, destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description is not the sole source of safety context. The description adds useful async and prerequisite context with 'Queue' and 'Required before...', but it does not explain what the destructive side effects are or what existing data may be affected.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the prerequisite condition. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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-parameter mutation tool, the description covers purpose and prerequisite but omits the consequences implied by destructiveHint=true. It also does not clarify how the queued scan is monitored or what happens after queuing, though the annotations carry some of that burden.

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?

There is only one parameter, domain_id, and the schema provides 100% description coverage. The description's phrase 'for a domain' loosely maps to it, but adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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: 'Queue a sitemap scan for a domain.' It also states the outcome ('discover and track pages') and distinguishes this setup step from the sibling 'run-site-audit' by naming the prerequisite condition.

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 gives a clear usage condition: required before running a site audit when no pages exist yet. It does not cover when not to use the tool or mention other alternatives, but the primary routing guidance is explicit.

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