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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it delivers real behavioral context: exact cost at both modes and the important fact that includePage:false uses 'no browser at all'. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or return format, which leaves some gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the usage rule, then the cost. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation, the recommended usage ordering, and the cost tradeoff well, but says nothing about the path-filtering or subdomain parameters or the shape of what comes back, leaving the agent to infer those.

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 57%, and several parameters (excludePaths, includePaths, includeSubdomains) have no description at all. The description richly enriches includePage with cost and browser-mode semantics, but does not compensate for the undocumented array parameters, so the schema still does most of the heavy lifting.

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 and resource - enumerating every URL of a site via its sitemap, with the optional page-link expansion. The agent can immediately distinguish this 'map' operation from the sibling crawl/scrape tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it 'BEFORE crawling, to see what is there and decide what is worth reading', which both defines the trigger and positions it relative to the sibling web_crawl tool. This is a genuine when-to-use statement, not an implied one.

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