whataburger_sitemap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the pagination behavior (returns one page, empty list past end), the size of the index (~3,950 URLs), the flat structure, and the meaning of each 'kind' value. It does not mention any destructive or write behavior, which is appropriate. It could have described the exact output structure (e.g., list of objects with url and kind) but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 longer than typical but every sentence carries value. It front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary details about the flat structure, kinds, and pagination. It could be tightened slightly (e.g., combining some clauses), but it is well-structured and not redundant. The length is justified by the need to explain the non-obvious kinds and pagination behavior.

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 sitemap browsing tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the data source (single flat sitemap), the size, the kinds, pagination, and end-of-list behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description implicitly covers the return structure by mentioning URLs and kinds. An agent can confidently call this tool and interpret results without further clarification. This level of completeness is rare and earns a 5.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the 'kind' parameter by explaining each possible value (store, curbside, delivery, directory) and their semantics. It also clarifies pagination behavior, which enriches the 'page' parameter meaning. It does not add much to 'page_size' but that is straightforward. The extra detail on 'kind' elevates this above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's function: browsing Whataburger's store-URL index. It specifies the resource (store-URL index), the verb (browse), and distinguishes itself from other sitemap tools by noting the flat vs. sharded structure. It also differentiates from whataburger_store by focusing on URL enumeration rather than store details.

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 explains when to use the tool: to browse the index, filter by kind, and walk through pagination. It implies that for specific store details one would use whataburger_store, but doesn't explicitly name that alternative. The guidance on filtering and pagination is clear, and the note about walking to exhaustion is helpful. An explicit 'use this instead of X when...' statement would earn a 5.

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