subway_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses pagination behavior (one page at a time), the shard structure (2 shards), the depth semantics of entries, and the end-of-pagination behavior (empty list, not error). It doesn't mention rate limits or whether the underlying sitemap is cached, but for a read-only enumeration tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized: it opens with the core purpose, then covers scale, entry semantics, and pagination behavior. Every sentence adds information, though the middle sentence about the country/region/city/street tree is slightly verbose. It earns a 4, not a 5, because it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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 paginated enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what is returned, how pagination works, how to detect the end, and how shards work. It doesn't describe the exact response shape, but the description's mention of 'URL, locator path, and depth' gives enough for an agent to use the tool. A 4 is fair given the absence of an output schema.

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 schema already documents page, shard, and page_size. The description adds context by explaining shard_count appears in the response and that page is 1-based, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Browse'), a precise resource (Subway's global store-URL index / sitemap-declared store index), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like subway_store and subway_nearby by framing it as the sitemap enumeration entry point. It also explains what each entry carries (URL, locator path, depth), so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns.

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 explicitly says this is 'the cheapest way to enumerate Subway locations' and 'the entry point Subway's own robots.txt declares,' which tells an agent when to prefer it over store-level or nearby tools. It also gives operational guidance: walk pages to exhaustion, and a page past the end returns an empty list rather than an error.

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