sitemap_validate

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

The description provides detailed behavioral information beyond annotations, including specific checks (oversize, missing lastmod, host mismatch) and handling of .gz. Annotations already confirm read-only and idempotent, so the description adds valuable transparency.

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 concise, with three sentences that front-load the core action and efficiently detail specific checks and .gz handling. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers input, actions, and specific validations. However, it lacks explicit information about the return value or response structure, which would be helpful given no output schema. Otherwise, it is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter. The description restates 'sitemap or sitemap-index URL' but does not add additional meaning or examples. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (fetch and validate), the resource (sitemap URL), and specific checks (oversize, missing lastmod, host mismatch). It distinguishes from siblings like gsc_list_sitemaps and sitemap_health by focusing on XML structure validation.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool (for validating sitemap XML) and indirectly distinguishes from siblings by specifying validation criteria. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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