sitemap_coverage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the tool checks reachability and reports missing/unreachable URLs, which is meaningful. However, it does not explain the 'verify' behavior, whether network requests are made to each known URL, or any side effects such as rate-limit impact or request costs.

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 cover the operation, inputs, outputs, and practical significance with no filler. The core comparison is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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?

An output schema exists, so describing return values is not necessary. The description is adequate for a straightforward comparison tool, but it omits the semantics of the optional 'verify' parameter and does not provide guidance on how this tool relates to siblings such as audit_urls or check_redirects, which would help an agent choose correctly in more ambiguous cases.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by indicating 'sitemap' maps to sitemap_url and 'list of URLs you know exist' maps to known_urls. However, the 'verify' parameter is entirely unexplained despite being a schema property with a default value, and the mapping from description to parameters remains implicit rather than explicit.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare') with clear resources: a sitemap and a list of known URLs. It precisely defines the two reported outcomes—URLs missing from the sitemap and sitemap entries that are unreachable—and the final sentence explains why this matters. It is clearly distinct from siblings like fetch_sitemap or audit_urls.

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 gives a clear scenario for when to use the tool: when you have a sitemap and a separate list of URLs known to exist, such as from a filesystem or crawl. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to identify this as the coverage-comparison tool among the siblings.

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