stevemadden_sitemaps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the exact source (`/sitemap.xml`), the fixed domain, and the transformation/behavior (returns child sitemap URLs with inferred types). It does not specify output shape or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing this is reasonably transparent.

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 short sentences carry all the essential information with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, the second specifies output and source, and the third clarifies the fixed-configuration behavior. 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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, where the data comes from, and what kind of data is returned. It could be slightly more complete by naming the sibling `stevemadden_sitemap_urls` as the alternative for page-level URLs, but nothing required for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the schema already fully documents that no inputs are needed. The description adds useful context by stating 'The storefront URL is fixed server-side,' which tells the agent not to expect or provide a URL parameter.

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 the specific verb-resource pair 'List Steve Madden sitemaps' and adds concrete detail: it returns child sitemap URLs from a fixed `/sitemap.xml` index with inferred sitemap types. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like `stevemadden_sitemap_urls`, which would target page-level URLs.

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 makes it clear that this is the tool for retrieving Steve Madden's child sitemap entries and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over `stevemadden_sitemap_urls` or the many other `*_sitemaps` sibling tools; the intended versus-alternative guidance is only implied.

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