stevemadden_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully notes that results are 'normalized static pages' and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which prevents an agent from trying to supply a URL. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response structure, or any rate-limit or content details beyond normalization.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds two useful facts (normalized output and fixed server-side URL) without 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 simple list tool with two optional, schema-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It names the data source, clarifies the output is normalized, and removes URL ambiguity. Yet without an output schema, it could be slightly richer about what a returned static page contains (e.g., title, content, metadata), though this does not prevent correct invocation.

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%, with both page and limit fully described by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema already documents the pagination parameters adequately.

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 begins with 'List Steve Madden static pages,' which is a specific verb + resource combination. The plural 'pages' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling stevemadden_page, and the brand name differentiates it from similar page-listing tools for other retailers.

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 provides clear context: use this to list Steve Madden static pages, with the brand and storefront identified. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over stevemadden_page or other page-related siblings, leaving some differentiation to inference from the naming.

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