get_sitemap

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

Annotations already provide the safety profile: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds useful return-context but no additional side-effect or authorization behavior beyond what the schema and annotations already 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, scope, and specific returned details without wasted words. Every clause contributes information an agent needs.

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 read-only lookup, the description combined with the rich input schema covers required inputs, safety, and expected return content. There is no output schema, so the listed return fields are helpful, though exact field names are not specified.

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%, with detailed explanations for all three parameters including property formats, account defaults, and examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 operation: retrieving details for one submitted sitemap. It enumerates concrete returned attributes (last download, last submitted, URL counts per type, pending/errored status), which clearly distinguishes it from list_sitemaps or mutation siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need details for a single submitted sitemap. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as list_sitemaps for enumerating sitemaps or submit_sitemap for adding one, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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