sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scale context (≈295,000 records, an index plus per-category sitemaps), which warns the agent about large result sets, but it says nothing about pagination, format (XML vs JSON), or error behavior for unknown names.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: it names the resource, gives examples, states the return, and stops. The dense inline list of names with parenthetical counts is slightly cluttered but every element 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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. However, for a tool that can surface hundreds of thousands of URLs, the description omits pagination behavior and the exact nature of the payload, leaving an agent under-informed about how to consume it.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'name' parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate — and it partially does by giving four concrete valid values ('sitemap', 'sitemap_specialities/1', 'sitemap_skills/1', 'sitemap_practitioner_doctors/1'). It still omits patterns, the meaning of the '/1' suffix, or behavior when a nonexistent name is passed.

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 states the resource clearly ('Sitemaps publics Doctolib') and the action ('Renvoie les URL'), and enumerates concrete sitemap names with volume ('≈ 295 000 fiches au total'). It is distinguishable from all siblings, which are search/booking tools, though the phrasing is an example list rather than a crisp one-line purpose statement.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives like search_practitioners or list_specialities, nor what prerequisites exist. The enumerated sitemap names only hint at valid inputs, not at usage context or exclusions.

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