Check sitemap.xml

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the real behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the discovery sequence, the flagged URL patterns, the sampling cap of 10 <loc> URLs, the 200-without-redirect criterion, and the lastmod freshness check. It doesn't say what the output shape is, but for a read-only diagnostic this is rich disclosure.

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?

It is one long sentence, but every clause earns its place and the primary action is front-loaded. Slight density cost for the run-on structure, but no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what the agent gets back, and it does so by enumerating the checks performed. It stops short of describing the return structure or failure modes, leaving a modest gap for a single-parameter diagnostic tool.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%; the schema already explains that any URL on the site works and that discovery is from the origin's robots.txt. The description repeats rather than extends that, so it sits at the baseline.

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 a specific verb (find/check) and resource (sitemap), and enumerates the exact discovery order plus the analysis performed. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling checks like check_robots, check_structured_data, or check_page_essentials.

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?

It describes what will be examined but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or routing to alternatives (e.g., check_robots for the full robots.txt picture). Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose rather than stated.

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