sitemap_audit

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

Without annotations, the description transparently discloses key behaviors: one-level recursion for sitemap indexes, use of defusedxml for safe parsing, and the exact return structure (urls_declared, urls_in_gsc, urls_missing_from_gsc, missing_sample, verdict with possible values). This goes beyond basic expectations.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and logically structured. It covers key aspects without unnecessary details, making it easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and only two simple parameters, the description provides comprehensive context. It explains the tool's process, safety measures, and return values, leaving minimal gaps for an agent to decide invocation.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool name and description make 'site' and 'sitemap_url' self-explanatory. The description could add format hints (e.g., 'site: sc-domain:example.com') for clarity, but the current text is sufficient for an agent to understand the parameters.

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's function: 'Fetch a sitemap, parse its URLs, and cross-reference with GSC indexed pages.' It specifies the resource (sitemap and GSC indexed pages) and actions (fetch, parse, cross-reference), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_sitemaps or submit_sitemap.

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 auditing sitemap coverage against GSC but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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