map_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses a cost (0.002 USDC) and the return shape, which is useful, but says nothing about rate limits, auth requirements (the auth_token_or_tx param is silently optional), failure behavior for unreachable sites, or the distinction between sitemap discovery and anchor traversal modes.

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?

Front-loads the verb and resource in the first sentence, then uses a labeled 'Usage Guidelines' block and a 'Returns' line. Slightly redundant ('Firecrawl /map equivalent' is a marketing reference rather than operational guidance), but overall tight.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still summarizes the return fields (target URL, domain, URL count, URL list, sitemap status), which is helpful but not strictly required. The main gap is that auth/payment semantics for the optional auth_token_or_tx parameter are left unexplained despite an advertised per-call cost.

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 three parameters (url, max_links, auth_token_or_tx) are already documented in the schema with examples, defaults, and bounds. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 verb+resource ('Discovers domain sitemap or traverses internal anchor links to return a canonical URL tree'), which is clear and unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from named siblings like search_web_quick or clean_web_content, which an agent might reasonably confuse with site traversal.

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 to map an entire website or documentation site before scraping, which gives a clear pre-scrape context. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when NOT to use it, so it's clear context without exclusions.

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