check_sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond them by explaining that it hits the live site rather than Google and by naming failure modes (wrong host, HTML fallback). It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit/timeout behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, scope, and the kinds of problems reported with no filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 usefully summarizes the return shape (URL count, sample URLs, detected problems), and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. Only the undocumented required parameter and auth expectations keep it short of 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?

Schema coverage is only 50% — 'site' is documented but the required 'sitemapUrl' has no description — and the description never mentions either parameter. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between the required sitemapUrl and the optional site property, leaving the caller to infer it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('fetches a sitemap from the live site') and scopes it with 'no Google call', which separates it from the Google-API siblings like list_sitemaps, submit_sitemap and inspect_url. It does not name an alternative outright, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 parenthetical 'no Google call' hints at when this tool is preferable (direct-site inspection without API quota), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus list_sitemaps/inspect_url guidance or prerequisite statement. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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