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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 200-page cap, sitemap-first discovery with a link-following fallback, and the guarantee that lastmod appears only when actually observed. That last detail is important because it tells the agent not to expect fabricated timestamps.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the limiting details packed into parentheses. Every clause carries information: page cap, crawl strategy, output format, and lastmod policy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the description covers the behavior an agent needs: what gets crawled, how far, and how timestamps are handled. It lacks only guidance on when this tool is preferred over its siblings.

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 one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema only supplies name and a uri format. The description implies 'url' is the site to crawl, which is minimal but sufficient for a single obvious required parameter. No detail is given on URL normalization, subdirectory scoping, or whether the root domain is required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: crawl a site and return a sitemap.xml. The scope constraint (up to 200 pages) and strategy (sitemap-first with link-following fallback) sharpen it further. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like generate_llms_txt, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Usage is only implied: you'd use this when you need a sitemap for a site. There is no statement of prerequisites, no explicit when-not to use it, and no pointer to siblings such as check_ai_crawler_access or generate_llms_txt, which an agent might otherwise consider for site-audit-style tasks.

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