ohpolly_sitemap_urls

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful context: results are 'capped', entries come from 'child sitemaps', and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side' (so the base domain is not configurable). It does not describe the return item format or pagination, but for a read-only list tool the key behaviors are disclosed beyond what the name alone implies.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes new information: first states what the tool lists, second clarifies the filtering, capping, and server-side URL constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the type filter, the cap, and the fixed base URL. It does not specify the exact shape of returned entries (plain strings vs. objects with loc/lastmod), which would be useful without an output schema, but the tool's purpose is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The schema already documents type with allowed values and limit with its default and maximum. The description adds the context that 'type' refers to child sitemaps and that the storefront URL is fixed, but it does not substantially elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clear verb-resource pair ('List Oh Polly sitemap URLs') and then specifies the exact behavior: returns capped URL entries from Oh Polly's child sitemaps matching the requested type. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ohpolly_sitemaps by emphasizing 'child sitemaps' and the fixed storefront URL, so an agent can tell this enumerates URLs from a specific sitemap type.

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 by describing type-filtered child sitemap enumeration, and the allowed values for the type parameter are listed in the schema. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of the sibling ohpolly_sitemaps (which likely lists sitemaps themselves) or any other alternative. There are no exclusions or direct routing guidance.

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