sitemap_citation_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool follows nested sitemaps, reports citation presence with counts, and requires cache priming. It does not mention idempotency or error conditions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second differentiates from a sibling, the third gives a crucial prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and the structure 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 no output schema, the description partially explains output (reports whether cited and counts). It also mentions dependency on cache priming. The tool is relatively simple; this level of detail is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions), so the schema already explains each parameter. The description does not add additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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?

Clearly states the tool cross-references a sitemap with the citation cache, reporting which URLs have been cited. Distinguishes from audit_sitemap by describing it as the inverse operation. The verb 'cross-reference' and nouns 'sitemap' and 'citation cache' precisely define the resource and action.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (to check if each sitemap URL has been cited), contrasts with audit_sitemap, and provides a prerequisite: cache must be primed via check_citations or run_panel first. This helps the agent select the right tool and prepare needed state.

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