check_sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that the tool is read-only, issues N+1 HTTP GETs and HEADs, and is deterministic. It explains the HTTP behavior and that it does not use LLMs. However, it could mention error handling, rate limits, or dependencies on domain accessibility, but the disclosure is still strong.

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 compact, well-structured into three clear paragraphs: purpose, technical behavior, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is properly 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 no output schema, the description covers the tool's scope and behavior well but does not describe the return format or possible errors. It lists the checks performed but lacks details on the output structure. Still, it is fairly complete for a tool with two parameters.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing baseline meaning. The description goes further by explaining how the domain parameter is used (tries /sitemap.xml, then robots.txt, follows index files) and how max_urls_to_check affects sampling and HTTP requests. This adds contextual value beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb 'Validate' and lists concrete aspects (presence, accessibility, URL count, lastmod freshness, sitemap-index handling, image/video extensions). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting this is for site-wide indexing audits, contrasting with per-page tools like audit_page and check_technical.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('site-wide indexing audits') and provides alternatives: 'Pair with check_robots for a full pre-crawl picture. For per-page checks, use audit_page or check_technical instead.' This gives clear guidance on context and exclusions.

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