Sitemap fetch and URL health check

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: support for sitemap indexes and .gz, sampling vs. all URLs, auto-discovery, and the kinds of HTTP problems detected.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core action and outcome come first, and the auto-discovery usage note is a natural follow-up.

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?

The description is complete enough for a read-only, well-annotated tool with no output schema: it covers input forms, supported formats, sampling/all behavior, and what the check surfaces. It does not spell out the return shape, but the phrasing strongly implies the response contains the URL list and status results.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds useful format context for the url parameter (sitemap index and .gz support), but it does not clarify the undocumented concurrency parameter or add much beyond the schema for the other parameters.

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 names a specific verb and resource: fetch a sitemap, list its URLs, and check HTTP status. It also states the outcome (finding 404s, redirects, server errors), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps or robots_check.

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 description gives clear context: fetch a sitemap and validate URL health, and it explains how to use a site root for auto-discovery via robots.txt or /sitemap.xml. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is unmistakable.

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