discoverSiteUrls

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: crawling and sitemap parsing, return of URL list grouped by depth, remaining audit quota, and 'siteContextText' to be passed to startSiteAudit. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose first, then return info, usage instructions, and sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The description fully explains the tool's input (one domain parameter), output (URLs grouped by depth, audit quota, siteContextText), and how to use the output (pass siteContextText to startSiteAudit, discuss with user). With an output schema present, the description covers all necessary context.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'domain' already described as needing protocol. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema; it repeats the requirement to include the protocol. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover all pages on a domain by crawling it and parsing its sitemap.' It uses a specific verb 'discover' and resource 'all pages on a domain'. The sibling differentiation section explicitly distinguishes it from startSiteAudit and previewPageAudit.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use this as the first step before starting a full site audit.' It also provides a post-call instruction: present URL list to user and ask for page selection. The 'Pick the right tool' section gives clear alternatives and steps.

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