audit_sitemap

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

The description discloses the cost (20 credits) and required API key, but with no annotations, it lacks other behavioral traits like rate limits, side effects, or safety. It does not explicitly state if it's read-only.

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 concise sentences covering purpose and prerequisites, with no wasted words. The essential information is front-loaded.

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 single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and credit cost. However, it omits prerequisites like sitemap accessibility or handling of missing sitemaps.

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?

The only parameter 'domain' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not clarify the expected format (e.g., with/without protocol, path to sitemap). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool audits an XML sitemap, listing specific checks (total URLs, duplicates, broken links, lastmod coverage). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like crawl_website or check_links that might overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions an API key requirement and checking balance via get_account_info, but does not specify when the sitemap audit is appropriate or exclusions.

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