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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results sorted worst-score-first and 'zero engine keys needed'. That keyless-run detail is valuable operational context not in the annotations. It stops short of describing pagination/truncation behavior, which the limit param implies.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with a differentiating benefit. No filler; each sentence adds either mechanism, output shape, value, or constraint.

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 and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return values and doesn't try. It supplies the ordering and keyless-run context an agent needs, though it omits guidance on concurrency/rate-limit tradeoffs and the sibling overlap already noted.

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%, so limit, concurrency and sitemap_url are fully documented by the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, and its claim of running on 'every URL' sits slightly in tension with the limit/concurrency slicing controls.

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 chain: fetch a sitemap, run predict_citation on every URL, and it names the output ordering. This clearly separates it from generic audit siblings like audit_schema or audit_llms_txt. However, it does not differentiate itself from the close sibling audit_sitemap_map, which an agent would need help distinguishing.

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 rather than explicit – 'Surfaces systemic issues across a whole site in one pass' conveys the scenario (whole-site diagnostics) but nowhere states when to prefer this over audit_sitemap_map or predict_citation directly. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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