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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond that: the 1000-URL ceiling, that no crawling happens, and that lastmod/changefreq/priority act as fallback defaults. It does not say what the call returns, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence opens with the deliverable and then layers limits, defaults, and the alternative in descending priority. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description leaves the return shape unclear — it mentions 'plusz link a böngészős generátorhoz' without saying whether that link is part of the response or merely a pointer to a separate UI. For a generator tool whose output the agent must relay, that ambiguity is the main shortfall; everything else about invocation is covered.

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 75%, and the schema already documents the URL-object shape, the lastmod format, and the priority range. The description mainly restates these as 'opcionális … alapértékkel' and repeats the 1000 limit that maxItems already encodes, adding only the nuance that top-level fields are defaults applied to entries.

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 artifact: build a standard sitemap.xml from the supplied addresses. It also sets the boundary conditions that separate it from the crawling-based alternative ('bejárás nélkül', max 1000 URLs), so an agent can recognize exactly which tool produces a sitemap file rather than a crawl or a check.

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?

It states the operating mode (from a given URL list, no crawling) and points to the browser generator as the alternative when CSV input, hreflang, or crawling up to 50 pages is needed. That covers the main branch decision, though the routing is phrased as a parenthetical aside rather than an explicit 'használd ezt, ha…' rule.

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