colehaan_sitemap_urls

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

The description discloses that URL entries are 'capped' (meaning limited), that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, and that results come from child sitemaps. Since no annotations exist, this adds meaningful behavioral context about what the tool returns and a constraint the agent should know about.

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?

The description is compact and informative, with the core purpose stated first and additional context (capped entries, fixed storefront) following. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it could more clearly differentiate itself from the sibling colehaan_sitemaps with a direct contrast.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter list tool, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned, what source, and a key constraint. It doesn't mention pagination or format details, but with zero required parameters and an output schema absent, it is reasonably complete. A 5 would require explicit distinction from colehaan_sitemaps.

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 the parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no extra detail about what 'type' values map to or how limit is applied beyond the schema, but since the schema already covers it, the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as listing Cole Haan sitemap URLs, specifies the source domain, and notes the distinction between child sitemaps and the requested type. This makes its purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from the sibling colehaan_sitemaps, which likely lists the sitemap files themselves rather than URL entries.

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?

The description doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool instead of colehaan_sitemaps, but the wording ('Returns capped URL entries from child sitemaps') vs the sibling name heavily implies usage for retrieving actual URLs versus sitemap index files. It conveys the context of use without giving explicit exclusions.

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