List style ids from the sitemap

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the data source (public sitemap) and the return shape (UUIDs with last-modified timestamps), which tells the agent the data may lag behind live pages. It stops short of stating ordering, pagination semantics, or sitemap refresh cadence.

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, zero filler, with the return value and its source front-loaded before the usage hint. Nothing repeats the title or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly spends words on what is returned (UUIDs plus timestamps). That covers the main gap for a no-required-param listing tool; ordering guarantees and whether unpublished styles are excluded are the only notable omissions.

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 limit, offset and updated_since each documented including defaults and bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description only alludes to updated_since via 'last-modified timestamps' and adds no format or behavior detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return published style UUIDs and their last-modified timestamps') plus the data source ('straight from the public sitemap'). It implicitly separates itself from refero_get_style by noting ids come without reading a style page, but it never names the closest sibling, refero_search_styles, so the boundary between listing and searching is left for the agent to infer.

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 second sentence gives a usage context ('Use this to discover ids without reading any style page'), which implies a cheap discovery workflow. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not name refero_search_styles as the alternative for filtered lookup, so the choice between list and search remains unstated.

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