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. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are 'capped' (bounded), and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side', explaining that no URL parameter exists or is needed. It does not describe return shape, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The scoping constraint (capped records, fixed server-side URL) is front-loaded, and the routing hint follows immediately.

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 covering return values, annotations covering the read-only safety profile, and 100% schema coverage on both parameters, the description needs only to state scope and routing, which it does. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents `type` (with its allowed values) and `limit` (default/max). The description reinforces that `type` selects the child sitemap and that the storefront URL is not user-supplied, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List) and resource (URL records from an Everlane child sitemap), plus the selection axis (`type`). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling everlane_sitemaps by casting that tool as the discovery step, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?

Provides a clear prerequisite/alternative: 'Use everlane_sitemaps to discover child sitemap types.' This tells the agent to call the other tool first to obtain valid `type` values. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use condition, so it stops just short of the top.

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