jimmy_johns_sitemap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details pagination behavior (one page per call, empty list past the end), the structure of entries (kind and store number), and the filtering mechanism. This is strong coverage, though it doesn't mention rate limits or error handling for invalid parameters, which is minor given the schema's enums.

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 concise—four sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the URL count, the variant structure, the filter usage, and the end-of-pagination behavior. No fluff or redundancy.

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 paginated index tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, how to paginate, the entry structure, and the filter options. It could explicitly mention that each entry includes a URL, but that is implied by 'sitemap-declared store index'. The explanation of sharding and page size is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 significant meaning to the 'kind' parameter by explaining the three variants and designating 'sandwiches' as canonical, which is not fully captured in the schema. It also clarifies the pagination model (page, shard, page_size) implicitly through the page iteration guidance.

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 states the tool's function: 'Browse Jimmy John's store-URL index' and explains it returns one page of the sitemap-declared store index. It distinguishes itself from siblings like jimmy_johns_store and jimmy_johns_nearby by focusing on the URL index, and it provides the domain-specific detail of three page variants per store, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives practical usage guidance: it explains how to use the 'kind' parameter to enumerate one variant per restaurant and notes that the canonical variant is 'sandwiches'. It also advises that a page past the end returns an empty list, enabling exhaustive iteration. While it doesn't explicitly compare to alternative tools, the context makes the intended use clear.

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