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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by enumerating the returned data fields (last read, errors, warnings, URL counts), giving the agent a concrete idea of what to expect. No contradiction with annotations.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key output fields. There is no unnecessary verbiage.

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 status tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential return information. It might benefit from specifying the response format or structure, but the current description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and invoke it correctly.

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%, and the parameter 'site' is thoroughly described in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reports status of submitted sitemaps, including specific fields (last read, errors, warnings, URL counts). It is distinct from siblings like health_check_all or site_overview because it focuses solely on sitemap data.

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 the tool is for checking sitemap status but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over related tools like health_check_all or site_overview. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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