Get one sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing that this is the place to see submission errors and that submit_sitemap's response will not contain them. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations.

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 just two sentences with no waste. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and each sentence contributes useful information: the return payload and the core use case. This is a model of concise, effective description.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description adds the missing behavioral intent: use it to verify a submission. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, and annotations cover side effects, so the description is complete for this context.

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 both site_url and feedpath are already well documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning; it only mentions the returned record fields. With complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's verb ('Returns') and resource ('full record for a single submitted sitemap'), enumerating the specific fields included. It also distinguishes itself from submit_sitemap by noting that errors appear here and never in submit_sitemap's response, which helps the agent distinguish it from a sibling.

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 an explicit when-to-use scenario: 'This is how to check whether a submission actually worked.' It also contrasts with submit_sitemap, telling the agent that errors are not visible there. However, it does not provide an explicit when-not-to-use for other siblings like list_sitemaps, so it stops short of a perfect 5.

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