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 that the storefront URL is fixed (useful, no store param needed) and that records are 'capped', though the cap detail is largely duplicated by the schema's limit field. No auth or rate-limit context is added, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the routing guidance. No filler and every clause earns its place.

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 safety profile, the description needn't explain return values or read-only behavior. It supplies purpose, scoping, and sibling routing, which is everything needed to call it correctly.

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 allowed values) and `limit` (default/max). The description references `type` and the fixed storefront but adds no enum or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an Oh Polly child sitemap), plus the scoping mechanism (`type`) and the fixed storefront constraint. It names the relevant siblings so the agent can tell it apart from ohpolly_sitemaps/pages/products without opening any 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 ohpolly_sitemaps to discover child sitemap types, ohpolly_pages for static pages, ohpolly_products for catalog items. Both the prerequisite (discover types first) and the alternatives with their selecting conditions are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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