sportskeeda_sitemap_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses meaningful traits: it returns canonical URLs and host-free path slugs, preserves slug case, percent-encodes unusual characters, and validates the source against the live index and robots sitemap list on each call. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but for a read-oriented sitemap tool it adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and return format, then follows with source and parameter constraints. It is appropriately sized, though the backward-compatibility note about sitemap_url is slightly less essential than the core paging and return details.

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?

For a moderately complex sitemap-paging tool with a rich input schema and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how slugs are formatted, how the source is validated, and how the two input alternatives relate. It is nearly complete, missing only incidental operational details such as authentication or rate-limit behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that exactly one of slug or sitemap_url must be provided and that sitemap_url is an alternative for existing callers. It does not explain limit or offset, which the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb and resource: page through a Sportskeeda sitemap and return canonical URLs and host-free path slugs. It also names the sibling tool '/sportskeeda/sitemaps' as the discovery source, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the sitemap-listing sibling without opening either schema.

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 makes clear that the sitemap is discovered via /sportskeeda/sitemaps and that either slug or sitemap_url should be provided, with sitemap_url kept for existing callers. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context and mutual-exclusivity instruction give adequate usage guidance.

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