jimmy_johns_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it states the output is one page, each entry carries a kind and store number, sandwiches is canonical, and past-end pages return an empty list rather than an error. It does not disclose output field names or rate limits, but the non-obvious pagination behavior is clearly surfaced.

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 four sentences, front-loads the purpose, and every sentence contributes distinct operational knowledge: scope, scale, variant structure, and pagination termination. There is no filler 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call semantics: what is returned (a page of store-URL index entries with kind and store number), how to filter variants, and how pagination terminates. Combined with a fully self-describing schema, an agent has enough information to invoke and exhaust the index correctly.

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?

The schema covers all four parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the baseline is met. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what kind represents in the sitemap context (three variants per store, sandwiches canonical) and framing page as part of an exhaustion walk. It does not add detail for shard or page_size, but those are already well-described in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse Jimmy John's store-URL index' and 'Returns one page of Jimmy John's sitemap-declared store index.' It further clarifies the domain by explaining the three page variants and the canonical 'sandwiches' kind, which distinguishes it from sibling store/menu tools.

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 enumeration guidance: filter with the kind parameter to get one variant per restaurant, and walk pages to exhaustion since out-of-range pages return an empty list. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like jimmy_johns_store or jimmy_johns_menu, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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