sitemap_urls

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses the discovery process (robots.txt, fallback to /sitemap.xml), recursive following of sitemap indexes, and handling of gzipped sitemaps. This gives useful behavioral insight that annotations do not cover.

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?

Two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the technical discovery details following. No redundant phrasing.

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 existence of an output schema and the detailed behavioral description, the tool is well-specified. It could mention failure modes (e.g., no sitemap found) but that's minor.

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 schema covers site and contains with descriptions; limit lacks a description but has default/max/min. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, so it adds no value beyond the schema. With 67% coverage, it's borderline; clarifying limit's effect would have helped.

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 action (List page URLs), the resource (competitor's sitemaps), and the purpose (to map its content structure). This distinguishes it from siblings that focus on keywords, trends, or page outlines.

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 a use case (mapping competitor content) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use. Since no sibling is similar, it's somewhat implied, but lacks explicit guidance.

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