check_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output shape (index vs urlset, URL count, sample URLs), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about network behavior, fallback order when /sitemap.xml is absent, error cases, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and immediately enumerates the returned artifacts, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what comes back, which is the key need for this read tool. It stops short of covering failure modes (missing sitemap, robots.txt fallback behavior) or the size/format of the URL sample, leaving minor gaps.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining it accepts 'Any URL on the site'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb ('Discover and summarize') plus the resource ('sitemap') and enumerates what is returned: index vs urlset, URL count, and sample URLs. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related check_robots, which it only mentions as a discovery route.

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?

Usage is implied by the context of the sibling audit tools (an agent would infer this is for inspecting a site's sitemap), but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus check_robots or audit_site, and no preconditions such as what happens when no sitemap exists.

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