ghl_kb_get_sitemap_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description meaningfully supplements this by clarifying the operation does not start a crawl, and by disclosing the Sub-Account (location) token requirement and the knowledge-bases.readonly OAuth scope. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior or rate limits, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core statement, then clearly labeled WHEN TO USE and RETURNS sections. Minor redundancy between the opening line and the RETURNS line, plus endpoint/version metadata that is structural rather than descriptive, but overall efficient.

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 tool has a nested request body with seven fields and no output schema, so the description must carry purpose, routing, auth and return shape — and it does all four. Nested body structure and the semantics of the Exact/Path/Domain crawl modes are left entirely to the schema, a small residual gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every field (url, option enum, search, page, pageSize bounds, locationId, knowledgeBaseId) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Preview Sitemap URLs') and immediately scopes it: a paginated, searchable list without starting a crawl. It also names the sibling capabilities it is not (discoverWebsite, trainDiscoveredUrls), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 WHEN TO USE block gives explicit routing: use this to preview URLs before a crawl, use discoverWebsite to start discovery, and use trainDiscoveredUrls once pages are found. Both the trigger condition and the alternatives are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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