gymshark_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results are 'capped' and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which are helpful. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, or what exactly the 'type' parameter maps to in terms of sitemap structure—gaps an agent would want to know.

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 with no redundancy. The core action is front-loaded, the scoping detail (child sitemaps, type matching) is next, and the fixed-URL note is a useful boundary condition. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior, but it lacks an explicit connection to the sibling 'gymshark_sitemaps' and doesn't explain return value structure or potential failure modes. It's adequate but leaves the agent to figure out the distinction between the two sitemap tools.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds context that limit means 'capped' entries, which somewhat reinforces the limit parameter, but it doesn't add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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 states a specific verb ('list'), resource ('Gymshark sitemap URLs'), and a distinguishing detail (returns capped URL entries from child sitemaps). It could more explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'gymshark_sitemaps', but 'child sitemaps matching the requested type' gives useful specificity.

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 when to use it (when you need sitemap URLs from Gymshark's child sitemaps) and notes the fixed storefront URL. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling 'gymshark_sitemaps' or state when to prefer one over the other, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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