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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond them, namely that results are returned one bounded page at a time, which tells the agent to paginate rather than expect a full dump.

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 with the core action front-loaded and the input sourcing second. No filler, though the 'remains an alternative' clause is slightly elliptical.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world nature. The description adds the pagination and slug-source context, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly aside from the optional-vs-required discrepancy.

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%, so the description must carry all four parameters, and it does name slug, offset, limit, and sitemap_url. However it calls offset/limit optional while the schema marks every parameter required, and it gives no bounds, defaults, or URL format, leaving a genuine ambiguity.

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 and resource: list canonical Sportskeeda page URLs and modification times from a sitemap. It also gestures at the upstream sibling (sportskeeda_sitemaps) as the slug source, though it does not contrast itself against other sitemap-adjacent tools in the family.

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?

Gives a clear usage path: obtain a slug from sportskeeda_sitemaps, then call this with offset/limit, and notes sitemap_url as an alternative input. It stops short of saying when to prefer the URL alternative over the slug or what happens on named exclusions.

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