allbirds_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are capped, that entries come from child sitemaps, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. However, it does not describe return structure, pagination behavior, or what happens when no type is supplied.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct useful information: what is listed, where entries come from, and an important fixed-server-side constraint. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 tool with fully documented optional parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description explains the result is a capped set of URL entries but not the output shape, and it does not clarify the relationship to allbirds_sitemaps or allbirds_store, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 the type allowed values and the limit default/maximum. The description adds only minor framing like 'matching the requested type' and 'capped', which does not meaningfully go beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 and resource: 'List Allbirds sitemap URLs' and clarifies that results come from Allbirds child sitemaps filtered by type. It is clearly a URL-listing tool, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling allbirds_sitemaps tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as allbirds_sitemaps, allbirds_products, or allbirds_store. The description tells what the tool does but not which situations call for it or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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