stevemadden_sitemap_urls

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so by revealing that results are capped, sourced from child sitemaps, filterable by type, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This adds genuinely useful behavior beyond the tool's name, though it does not address error cases or rate limits.

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 the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the key return behavior and a relevant server-side constraint. There is no filler or redundancy; 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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It conveys what is returned, the filtering behavior, the cap, and the fixed base URL. It could arguably specify the response shape more explicitly, but 'URL entries' gives a sufficient hint for an agent.

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 input schema documents both parameters completely, listing allowed type values and the limit default/range. The description only makes a passing reference to 'matching the requested type' and does not add any semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Steve Madden sitemap URLs'), then adds precision with 'child sitemaps' and 'matching the requested type.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling stevemadden_sitemaps and other brand-specific tools without ambiguity.

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 intended usage is implied: call this tool to get sitemap URLs filtered by type. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over stevemadden_sitemaps or other sibling alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusion conditions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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