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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds critical behavioral context: it returns file contents as text output and does not write to disk unless copied by the user. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side-effect-free nature.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USAGE GUIDELINES, BEHAVIORAL TRANSPARENCY). The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. It's concise despite covering multiple aspects.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers all necessary context: what it generates, when to use it, what it returns (text output, no disk write), and which sibling tools to use instead. No output schema exists, but the return format is explicitly stated.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter (urls, targetUrl, disallowedPaths) already described. The description itself doesn't add parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to given the schema coverage. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('generates sitemap.xml and robots.txt') and names the exact output format and crawler directives. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools in the usage guidelines, so an agent can tell it apart without opening schemas.

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 provides explicit when-to-use ('missing sitemap.xml or robots.txt, or needs clean, updated configuration files') and when-not-to-use conditions, naming the specific alternative tools for audits and crawls. This is unambiguous guidance.

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