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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: deterministic signature for declared URLs, non-deterministic optional fetch not covered by signature, SSRF-guarded, bounded at every axis, and cost per call. This provides comprehensive transparency beyond what annotations would typically cover.

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 dense sentence, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently packs many details without redundancy. Minor points: it could be split into shorter sentences for readability, but overall it earns its space.

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 complexity (sitemap discovery, parsing, optional probe, signature, boundaries, cost), the description covers all essential behavioral aspects. No output schema is provided, but the description adequately describes the return value (URL inventory with attributes). It is complete enough for an AI agent to understand what the tool does and its constraints.

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%, and the description adds significant value beyond schema fields. For the 'url' parameter, it clarifies that only the origin is used. For 'fetch', it explains the range, behavior (shallow-fetch and report live title, status, bytes), and that results are not covered by the signature. For 'limit', it provides the default and maximum. This greatly aids correct invocation.

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 defines the tool's purpose: discovering and parsing a site's sitemap, returning a signed snapshot. It specifies the exact process (robots.txt then fallback, parsing both <urlset> and <sitemapindex>, deduped bounded list) and includes details like optional fetch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fetch' or 'robots' by focusing on sitemap-specific functionality.

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 explains when to use the tool (to get a signed sitemap snapshot) and briefly mentions optional features like fetch for liveness probing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when one should avoid using it. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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