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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is low. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the storefront URL is fixed server-side and results are capped (default 50, hard max 250), which shapes how an agent should size requests.

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 behavior and kept to a few dense sentences with no filler. Minor redundancy: the limit default/max is repeated verbatim from the schema rather than adding new 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 values need not be described, and the description covers scope, the server-fixed URL, and the sibling routing. For a simple two-parameter read tool this is adequately complete, with only minor gaps around what happens when a requested type is empty.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description restates the limit default and maximum but adds no meaning to the 'type' parameter or the enumeration of allowed sections beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource ('Returns capped URL entries from ... child sitemaps matching the requested type'), precisely naming what is returned and the scoping mechanism. It also disambiguates from the sibling fashionnova_sitemaps, which lists sitemaps rather than their URL entries.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly to fashionnova_sitemaps when the goal is to list sitemaps rather than extract their URLs, giving a clear sibling alternative. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. that a sitemap must first be selected), so it lacks the full when/when-not treatment.

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