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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool discovers sitemap URLs, parses sitemap XML, and returns last-modified and change-frequency data. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first states the high-level purpose, the second details what the tool discovers and returns. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary background.

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?

The tool is backed by rich annotations, a 100%-described input schema, and an output schema, so the call contract is well specified. The description provides the remaining semantic context about sitemap-specific returns, making the definition complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 100%: both `url` and `render` have meaningful descriptions, including rendering modes, defaults, and credit costs. The description does not add parameter-specific detail, but it does not need to because the schema already carries that burden.

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 ('Inspect'), a concrete resource ('website's sitemap'), and spells out the actions and return values: discover sitemap URLs, parse sitemap XML, and return page URLs with last-modified dates and change frequencies. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tooltrace_links or tooltrace_metadata.

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 implied by the name and sitemap-focused description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or conditions are mentioned, so the agent has to infer when this is the right choice.

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