Sitemap fetch and URL health check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral details such as sitemap index support, .gz handling, sampling vs. all URLs, a 500 cap for checkAll, and even sampling logic, which go beyond 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 three concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded. It covers the core functionality, format support, and auto-discovery without any redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description explains the main actions and expected results (identifying 404s, redirects, errors) but does not detail the response structure or error handling. While sufficient for an agent to call correctly, a bit more detail on output would make it fully complete.

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 the schema already documents most parameters (url, checkAll, listUrls, sampleSize). The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning—it mentions auto-discovery for url and sampling for sampleSize, but these are already in the schema. Concurrency lacks a description in the schema and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches a sitemap, lists URLs, and checks HTTP status to identify 404s, redirects, and server errors. It also mentions auto-discovery from robots.txt or /sitemap.xml, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like site_crawl 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 provides clear context on what the tool does and how to use it, including the option to pass a site root for auto-discovery. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the usage is straightforward and unlikely to be confused with siblings.

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