webmaster_sitemaps

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned data (URL, address count, error count, last crawl date), which is real context. It does not state that this is a read-only listing, nor anything about pagination or rate limits beyond the limit parameter.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the resource and then lists the relevant fields. No filler, no redundancy; a slightly more explicit verb ('список'/'возвращает') would make it sharper.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately documents what comes back and is sufficient to invoke correctly. The only real gap is the absence of any when-to-use guidance relative to its siblings.

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% — the single 'limit' parameter already documents its range and default in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameters, 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 names a specific resource — the sitemap files Yandex sees for the site — and enumerates the returned fields (URL, адресов, ошибок, дата обращения), so an agent knows what it gets back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the closest siblings (webmaster_indexing, webmaster_recrawl), but the resource is distinct enough to separate it from the other webmaster_* tools.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus webmaster_indexing or webmaster_recrawl, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.

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