get_sitemap_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'gets detailed information' but doesn't disclose what information is included, whether it's read-only, what errors might occur, or any side effects. The domain-property note is useful but not behavioral disclosure about the tool itself. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage, so score 2.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. It's structured and easy to scan, so score 4.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context. It doesn't describe the nature of the returned 'detailed information' or any potential error conditions. The absence of annotations makes this a notable gap, but the parameter guidance is thorough. Overall, it's minimally viable but with clear gaps, so score 3.

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 has 0% coverage, but the description compensates well. It explains site_url's exact format with examples ('https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com'), and adds a critical nuance about domain properties covering subdomains. sitemap_url is defined as 'the full URL of the sitemap to inspect.' This adds significant meaning beyond the bare parameter names, so score 4.

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 a verb+resource: 'Get detailed information about a specific sitemap.' The word 'specific' distinguishes this from list-style sibling tools like get_sitemaps and list_sitemaps_enhanced, implying a single-sitemap lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides guidance on how to construct the site_url parameter, including reference to list_properties and a domain-property nuance. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_sitemaps, submit_sitemap, or manage_sitemaps, and no exclusions based on scenario. This is implied at best, so score 2.

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