sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most consequential trait: this is a paid call at 0.002 USDC on Base mainnet, settled automatically from the wallet in PAYER_PRIVATE_KEY. It does not say whether sitemap indexes are followed recursively, what happens when no sitemap exists, or error/rate-limit 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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the action is front-loaded ahead of the payment caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the data source, the returned content in loose terms, and the billing mechanism. The main remaining gap is return shape detail — whether index sitemaps are expanded or returned as-is.

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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains 'domain' with an example. The description adds no syntax, normalization, or URL-vs-domain guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch a domain's sitemaps and list the page addresses they declare. This is clear enough to distinguish it from page_links or feed_reader, though it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer it is for discovering pages via sitemap. There is no statement of when to prefer this over feed_reader or page_links, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the payment note.

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