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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are 'capped' (truncation is possible) and no storefront identifier is accepted. It stops short of describing ordering or what happens when the cap is hit, which keeps it from a 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the sibling pointer and scoping note following. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only profile. The description covers selection, discovery workflow, and the fixed storefront, though it leaves open what 'capped' means at the boundary beyond the schema's documented 250 max.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description corroborates that `type` selects the child sitemap and explains why no storefront parameter exists. That is meaningful added meaning beyond the schema's field-level text.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List capped URL records from an Allbirds child sitemap') with the selection key named. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling allbirds_sitemaps by framing that tool as the discovery step rather than the record-listing tool.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use allbirds_sitemaps to discover child sitemap types before calling this. It also pre-empts a likely mistake by stating the storefront URL is fixed server-side, so no store parameter is needed.

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