map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses the data sources, deduplication, output contents (list, total, per-section summary), and pricing. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a read-only discovery call these are minor gaps.

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?

Four tight sentences front-load the core behavior, then return shape, cost comparison, and price. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers sources, deduplication behavior, return contents, pricing, and the main use case, while the schema covers params. This is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 six parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds output context but no new parameter-level semantics, which meets the high-coverage baseline of 3.

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 opening 'Discover every URL of a site in one call' names the action and resource, and the following colon specifies the exact discovery sources (robots.txt sitemaps, /sitemap.xml, nested indexes, same-domain homepage links). This clearly distinguishes map from siblings like crawl and search.

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 phrase 'Always cheaper than crawling to find out how big a site is' gives a concrete use case and names crawl as the alternative. It does not explicitly address when to prefer search or seo_audit, but the context makes the primary selection criterion clear.

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