Inspect a sitemap document

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scope behavior beyond them: it processes exactly one document, refuses to recurse into child sitemaps, and performs no indexing check — all real limits an agent must know. It omits auth needs, size/timeout limits, and error behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope exclusions immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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, no annotations gap, and a single-parameter signature, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is fetched, what is reported, and what is deliberately not done. Only edge behavior (compressed sitemaps, fetch failures, very large documents) is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema supplies just type/keyword/format/maxLength with no wording. The description adds real meaning by constraining the value to a public XML sitemap or sitemap index URL, but says nothing about gzip-compressed maps or how errors on unreachable URLs are reported. Useful but partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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 (Fetch/Inspect/Report) and resource (one public XML sitemap or sitemap index), plus the exact anomaly classes it surfaces (malformed locations, duplicates, date syntax, samples). That resource scope alone separates it from audit_url, audit_html, and inspect_robots without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly bounds the tool: 'Does not fetch child maps or check indexing,' which preempts the common misuse of expecting recursive crawling or index-status verification. It stops short of naming the sibling to use instead (e.g., inspect_robots for robots.txt), so it is context-rich but not fully routing.

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