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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is known. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that results are capped and that the storefront URL is fixed (no per-store URL input), which materially shapes what the agent gets back. It does not quantify the cap, but that ladders to the limit param.

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-loads the core purpose in the first clause and appends only routing information. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists (return values need not be explained) and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is nearly complete. The one small gap is that 'capped' is not tied to the limit param's max, but the schema already documents that.

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 coverage is 100% and the type param already lists all allowed values including the default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond naming type as the selector; 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 PSA Team Store child sitemap) with the selection key (type) and the fixed storefront constraint. This clearly distinguishes it from psastore_sitemaps and psastore_page, which are named as the alternatives.

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 psastore_sitemaps to discover sitemap types, or psastore_page for static pages. The condition for selecting each alternative is spelled out, 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.