list_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the output contents (status, URL counts, crawl time), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state side effects or confirm read-only behavior. For a simple list operation this is acceptable, but more context (e.g., no mutation, pagination behavior) would improve 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 a single, information-dense sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the resource ('Sitemaps Bing knows') before the supporting details, making it quick to parse.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource scope and the returned data fields effectively. The optional siteUrl is left to the schema, which is appropriate. A minor gap is the lack of mention of pagination or the possibility of an empty list, but this is not critical.

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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, siteUrl, including its default behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is fine because the schema already documents it fully.

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 identifies the resource ('Sitemaps Bing knows for the site') and the data returned (processing status, URL counts, last-crawl time). It differentiates from sibling tools like submit_sitemap and remove_sitemap by focusing on the current known state, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Lists'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools like submit_sitemap and remove_sitemap are present, but the description provides no contrasts or conditions for selecting this one.

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