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 useful context beyond that: the index lives at a fixed `/sitemap.xml` path and sitemap types are inferred rather than declared. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, but the output schema carries the return shape.

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 what the tool returns, followed by the sibling routing. No filler, and the constraint on input is placed where it matters.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, the alternative, and the input constraint, leaving nothing an agent needs in order 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by noting no storefront URL input is accepted, which preempts an agent trying to pass a URL, adding value beyond the empty schema.

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 (Rothy's child sitemap directory and inferred sitemap types) and grounds it in the fixed `/sitemap.xml` index. It clearly separates itself from the sibling rothys_sitemap_urls, which handles per-child-sitemap URL listing.

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 this tool to see the child sitemap directory/types, and use rothys_sitemap_urls to list URLs within a child sitemap. It also states a when-not constraint ('no storefront URL input is accepted'), so the agent knows no parameter is expected.

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