web_map

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

Annotations already establish read-only and open-world behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: it avoids fetching pages, lists the source types, highlights token savings versus crawling, and names the returned fields. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three dense sentences with no wasted text. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and return information in a logical order.

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 usefully names the return keys (`urls`, `sources_used`, `sitemaps`, `feeds`) and tells the agent how to proceed with `web_fetch_many`. Combined with complete parameter descriptions, it is sufficient for an agent to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or interaction details for url, limit, include, or sources beyond what the schema provides.

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: list a site's URLs without fetching pages. It also enumerates the sources it maps (robots.txt, sitemaps, feeds, homepage links), which distinguishes it clearly from web_crawl and web_fetch_many.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before web_crawl to decide what is worth fetching, or to find the page for a topic. It also names web_fetch_many as the follow-up for reading selected URLs, giving clear routing guidance.

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