Sitemaps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned content categories (status, discovered URLs, last crawl, errors), which the annotations do not provide, but it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or refresh timing.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most useful content (what is returned) is front-loaded. The telegraphic fragment style is efficient though slightly clipped.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately communicates both scope and return content, and the schema handles the parameter. Only the absence of any usage/exclusion guidance keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it at 100% coverage, including the pointer to list_sites, so the schema carries the full burden. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline in this situation.

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 the resource ('submitted sitemaps and feeds') and enumerates what it surfaces (status, URLs discovered, last crawl, errors), which clearly separates it from the keyword/traffic/crawl-stat siblings. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource, but an agent can still tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond what the schema's siteUrl description already supplies ('Call list_sites if unsure'). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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