web_sitemap_walk

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It explains the workflow (sitemap then search fallback) and return format, but omits potential issues like timeouts, rate limits, or prerequisites (e.g., domain must be valid). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 very concise: one sentence for core purpose, followed by bulleted Args and Returns. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the Returns section compensates by showing the structure. The description covers purpose, parameters, and method. It could be more explicit about scoring criteria or edge cases, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds concrete examples (domain: 'rbi.org.in', topic: 'press releases') and clarifies max_candidates range (1-20). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though more detailed constraints would be helpful.

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 action ('Locate the canonical landing page') with a clear method (via sitemap.xml, fallback to Tavily search). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like web_search and web_fetch by focusing on sitemap-based discovery and fallback behavior.

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 provides clear context ('on an authority domain') and explains the fallback mechanism, helping the agent decide when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like web_search_authoritative, which limits guidance.

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