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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that records are 'capped' (results are bounded) and restricted to 'public' sitemaps, which is useful context, but it does not elaborate on the cap behavior, pagination, or failure modes.

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 action and resource, followed immediately by routing guidance. No 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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the annotations carry safety. Purpose, scope, and sibling routing are all present; only deeper behavioral detail (cap enforcement, sitemap discovery requirement) is left implicit.

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%, so url/type/limit are already fully documented, including the enum values and the 50/250 limits. The description only names `type` and `url` as selectors without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List capped URL records from public Shopify child sitemaps') and explicitly scopes it to the `type`/`url` selectors. It names the sibling tools (shopify_sitemaps, shopify_products, shopify_pages), so an agent can place it precisely in the family 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?

Points to shopify_sitemaps as the way to discover child sitemap types (an implicit prerequisite) and to shopify_products/shopify_pages as the browsing alternative. Clear context for selection, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or the full decision conditions.

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