Audit a sitemap

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses real operational behavior: only same-host URLs are requested, the sample is capped by the server, and probed-site text is explicitly flagged as untrusted data rather than instructions. The untrusted-data warning is a genuinely valuable safety disclosure that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and tightly written; the enumerated checks and the safety note each pull weight. The long middle clause enumerating failure types makes it slightly dense, but nothing reads as filler.

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, the description does list the classes of findings an agent can expect (HTTP errors, redirects, noindex, missing titles, canonical mismatches, robots-blocked URLs), which largely substitutes for a return-value spec. It omits the shape of the report and any pagination or aggregation details, a minor gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including that 'url' accepts a site root or a sitemap URL and that 'sample' is evenly spread. The description reinforces the host-scoping behavior of the request set and mentions server-side capping, adding modest value over the structured fields.

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 a specific verb and resource (finds a site's sitemap, then audits a sample of its URLs) and enumerates exactly what is checked. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like http_probe or redirect_chain, which operate on individual URLs rather than a sitemap corpus.

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 gives concrete triggering contexts: 'Ideal after a migration or when Search Console reports submitted URL errors.' That is a clear when-to-use signal, though it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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