hreflang / multilingual consistency check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds transparency by listing all the validations performed, giving the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior. 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that efficiently lists all checks. It front-loads the purpose with a colon and enumerates the items. No wasted words, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability.

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?

This is a complex tool performing many validations, yet there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the tool returns (report, pass/fail, list of issues). It also omits any constraints like authentication or limits beyond the schema's maxItems. An agent would not know what to expect as a result, making the definition incomplete.

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 only 33% (only sitemapUrl has a description). The description indirectly explains the urls vs sitemapUrl inputs ('page' vs 'sitemap sample'), but leaves sampleSize entirely unaddressed. With low coverage, the description should compensate more, but it fails to explain the optional sampleSize parameter or how the two input modes interact.

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 uses specific verbs 'read' and 'verify' and enumerates the exact checks (reciprocal, self-referencing, valid codes, x-default, canonical consistency, html lang). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sitemap_check or robots_check, which focus on different aspects.

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 tool's purpose is clear from the name and description, so an agent can infer when to use it, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides no comparison to sibling tools.

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