XML Sitemap Check

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: discovery via robots.txt and fallback paths, handling of gzipped/indexed sitemaps, and specific validation checks including URL count and lastmod validity. No contradiction with annotations.

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 about 150 words but efficiently uses three structured segments: discovery, validation, and invocation with example. Every sentence contributes details about the tool's behavior or expected use, avoiding redundancy with schema or annotations.

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 tool of this complexity with rich schema annotations and an output schema, the description covers discovery logic, validation rules, parameters, return payload, and an example. It leaves no gaps about edge cases like sitemap indexes or gzipped sitemaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema parameter descriptions and adds an example mapping 'example.com' to the site parameter, but does not introduce new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs 'Discover, fetch and validate' with the resource 'XML sitemap', and distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like robots_txt_check by focusing on sitemaps. It also enumerates specific validation checks, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the example 'Check the sitemap for example.com' demonstrates a clear invocation. The description implies usage by stating what it does and how discovery works, but lacks explicit comparisons to siblings like link_audit or robots_txt_check.

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