fashionnova_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: results are 'capped,' the source is child sitemaps, and the storefront URL is fixed server-side. It does not cover rate limits, response shape, or pagination behavior, so it provides only partial transparency.

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 sentences, each earning its place: purpose, behavior, and a clarifying caveat about the fixed storefront URL. Information is front-loaded with the core action first, and there is no redundant wording.

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 two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it returns (URL entries), how they are selected (by type), the cap, and the fixed base URL. It does not spell out the exact response structure, but that is a minor gap for a URL-list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic value by linking 'requested type' to the type parameter and 'capped URL entries' to limit, and it clarifies that no base-URL parameter is needed. It does not add new format or syntax details beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Fashion Nova sitemap URLs'), and scopes itself to 'child sitemaps matching the requested type,' which distinguishes it from the sibling fashionnova_sitemaps tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the child-sitemap phrasing gives enough differentiation from the sitemap-index tool.

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 implies usage: call this to retrieve URL entries from specific sitemap types (products, collections, etc.). However, it does not state when to prefer this over fashionnova_sitemaps or how it fits into a sitemap discovery workflow, leaving the when-not guidance implicit.

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