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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds the comparison/inspection mechanism, but does not disclose rate limits, per-URL inspection overhead, or what happens after inspection. It provides some context beyond annotations but not rich behavioral detail.

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 contain the mechanism, the result, and the user value, with zero filler. The operational statement is front-loaded and the second sentence adds a memorable framing without repetition.

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 tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, inputs, and likely output concept well. It is only missing an explicit statement of what the returned report contains, which would make it fully 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already documents site formats and the limit range with defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond restating the tool's purpose, so the schema bears the full burden and the baseline 3 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it compares sitemap URLs with pages receiving impressions and inspects the worst offenders. This makes the tool's function concrete and separates it from general performance or search tools, while the title reinforces the gap concept.

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 to use the tool: any time you need to surface sitemap pages that get no Google impressions. It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended use case is explicit enough to guide selection.

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