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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and access profile are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it reads a fixed /sitemap.xml index, infers content types, and needs no input. It stops short of describing return volume or pagination, but with annotations present this is solid.

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. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence handles routing and input clarification without any wasted words.

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?

The tool is a simple, zero-parameter sitemap lister, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Annotations cover safety and open-world access, and the description covers purpose, alternatives, and input expectations, leaving no meaningful gap.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds a small but relevant clarification that no storefront URL input is needed, which helps an agent understand this is a parameterless call rather than one requiring a URL.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ("List") with a clearly bounded resource ("Oh Polly's child sitemap directory and inferred content types from its fixed /sitemap.xml index"). It explicitly differentiates itself from sibling tools by naming ohpolly_sitemap_urls and ohpolly_page for alternate scopes.

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?

It directly states the alternative tools to use for listing URLs within a child sitemap or fetching a single page, which is exactly when another tool should be selected instead. It also clarifies that no storefront URL input is required, removing a likely source of confusion.

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