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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paged, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about page size, cap, or ordering.

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?

A single short sentence with the key qualifiers ('paged', 'discovered sitemap') front-loaded and no filler whatsoever.

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 values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile, but the undefined required 'name' parameter leaves a real gap for a 3-parameter tool, making the definition only minimally adequate.

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 0% for all three parameters. 'Paged' loosely implies limit/offset semantics, but the required 'name' parameter is never explained — an agent cannot tell whether it is a sitemap identifier, a URL, or a site section name.

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+resource: paged URLs from a Rotten Tomatoes sitemap. The phrase 'from a discovered sitemap' also implicitly distinguishes it from rottentomatoes_sitemaps, which does the discovery step, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 word 'discovered' implies this tool is called after a sitemap-discovery step, which is the correct sequencing relative to rottentomatoes_sitemaps, but the description never states when to use this versus that sibling or any precondition on how 'name' is obtained.

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