kyliecosmetics_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, sourced from child sitemaps, filtered by type, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This is meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not detail return format, pagination, or failure behavior.

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 filler: the first states the action, the second adds scoping details, and the third records an important constraint. Every sentence contributes value and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity listing tool with two optional, fully-described parameters, the description covers the key operational constraints: capped entries, child-sitemap source, type matching, and fixed base URL. Without an output schema, a slightly more explicit note on return shape would make it fully complete, but this is nearly sufficient.

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%, with both 'type' and 'limit' already described. The description adds contextual reinforcement ('child sitemaps matching the requested type') but does not provide new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Kylie Cosmetics sitemap URLs'), and scope ('child sitemaps matching the requested type'), and notes the storefront URL is fixed server-side. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast with the closely named sibling kyliecosmetics_sitemaps, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as kyliecosmetics_sitemaps (which likely lists the sitemap index) or kyliecosmetics_products (which lists products). The 'matching the requested type' phrase implies filtering, but no exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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