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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), lowering the bar. The description adds that values come from the official sitemap index, which implies freshness/authority, but says nothing about ordering, count, or rate limits.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the action. Zero waste, nothing to trim.

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-value detail is not required. The description supplies the one thing the schema cannot: what the values are for and which sibling consumes them. Minor gap on ordering/pagination, not significant for a zero-arg listing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description also clarifies the value format (YYYYMM) returned and the downstream consumer, which is meaningful semantic information for a discovery tool.

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 precise verb and resource: it lists YYYYMM values from GhanaWeb's article-sitemap index. The mention of ghanaweb_archive distinguishes it from the sibling article/headlines/news tools, though the sibling relationship is described in usage terms rather than a full differentiation.

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 tells the agent what to do with the output: 'use one with ghanaweb_archive.' That is a clear downstream context and effectively the when-to-use case. It does not state when-not to call it, so it falls short of a 5.

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