Check sitemap.xml

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations: it samples up to 10 <loc> URLs and verifies they return 200 without redirects, and it checks lastmod freshness. These are concrete actions that inform the agent about network calls and validations. However, it does not disclose details like potential timeouts or rate limits, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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 a single sentence that packs all key actions efficiently. It is front-loaded with the fetch action and preserves clarity by using a list-like structure. No wasted words.

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 lacking an output schema, the description outlines all the checks performed: fetching the sitemap, counting entries, flagging specific URLs, sampling for HTTP status, and checking lastmod. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's behavior. The only missing piece is a description of the output format, which would be helpful but is not critical given the detailed action list.

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 schema description for the 'url' parameter already fully explains its semantics: 'Any URL on the site — the origin's /sitemap.xml is checked'. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies the tool's primary action ('Fetch /sitemap.xml') and enumerates specific checks (count entries, flag admin/cart/checkout/internal-search URLs, sample 10 URLs for HTTP 200 without redirects, check lastmod presence/freshness). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like crawl_audit or check_url_structure.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: to audit a site's sitemap.xml. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the scope is unambiguous given the sibling list. This aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions' rather than explicit alternatives.

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