sitemap_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses meaningful traits: it handles both urlset and sitemapindex, recurses one level, uses defusedxml to prevent XXE and billion-laughs attacks, and clarifies that retained legacy fields only describe Search Analytics visibility. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the safety and semantic caveats are substantial.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the caveats are clearly separated into paragraphs. It is somewhat long and includes legacy field details, but those details help prevent misinterpretation of the output.

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 a complex audit tool with no annotations and an output schema that handles return values, the description is largely complete on behavior and caveats. Its main omissions are parameter semantics and explicit routing to alternatives, but the operational context and safety notes make it usable.

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 0% and neither required parameter has a schema description. The description does not explain what 'site' or 'sitemap_url' should contain, what format they take, or how they relate to Search Analytics, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap beyond the intuitive parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetches a sitemap and compares its URLs with pages visible in Search Analytics. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like list_sitemaps and sitemaps_get by describing an audit/comparison rather than simple listing or retrieval.

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 implies usage for sitemap-vs-Search-Analytics visibility comparison and warns that Search Analytics is not an indexation inventory, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_indexing_issues, inspect_url, or list_sitemaps.

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