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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: results are 'capped', and the row.gymshark.com storefront URL is fixed (so no domain parameter exists). It doesn't cover pagination beyond the cap, but that constraint is largely in the schema's limit field.

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 tight clauses with the primary operation and scope front-loaded, followed by the disambiguation sentence. No filler or restated schema values.

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 safety annotations covering the read profile, the description needn't explain return values; it supplies the scope, the fixed domain, and sibling routing. Adequate for a two-optional-parameter listing tool.

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% – the schema already enumerates the allowed `type` values and the limit default/max. The description adds only that `type` selects the child sitemap section, which is a minor extension, so the 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 ('capped URL records from a Gymshark child sitemap selected by `type`'), plus the fixed storefront domain. It distinguishes itself from the sibling sitemap tools by naming them, so an agent can tell it 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use gymshark_sitemaps to discover child sitemap types or gymshark_pages for static-page URLs.' That gives both an alternative and the condition selecting each, which is exactly the guidance needed among near-identical sitemap siblings.

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