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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds meaningful context by pinning the source to a single host, signaling there is no domain parameter to vary, but it says nothing about pagination/truncation behavior beyond the schema.

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 tight sentence with the key scoping fact in parentheses, front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately sized, though the parenthetical slightly buries the pinned-host detail.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the read-only/open-world profile, the description need not explain return values. For a low-complexity, zero-required-param tool this is nearly adequate, but the absence of any usage/routing guidance leaves a small 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 coverage is 100%; the enum values for 'type' and the limit default/max are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('sitemap URL discovery') and adds the concrete scope ('pinned to https://store.psacard.com'), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling psastore_sitemaps, which likely enumerates sitemap files rather than URLs.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to the nearby psastore_sitemaps or psastore_page tools. The word 'discovery' only weakly implies intent, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to a direct page/collection call.

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