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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations lack: it acts only on the caller's own jobs, results are paginated, and an API key must be supplied in the X-Api-Key header. However, it lists statuses ('pending, running') that do not exist in the schema, which actively misleads.

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?

Four tight sentences, purpose front-loaded, then filters, then pagination, then auth prerequisite. No filler, though the auth sentence could sit earlier as a prerequisite.

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?

With no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description must fully specify the contract; it covers every parameter at a high level but withholds return shape (what a job record contains) and supplies an incorrect status vocabulary. Adequate scaffolding, but not a reliable contract.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameters, and it does cover url (partial match), date range, page, page_size, and api_key. But the status values it enumerates ('pending, running, completed, failed') contradict the schema enum ('queued, processing, completed, failed, cancelled'), a substantive accuracy failure for a filter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List map jobs') and scopes it to the authenticated user with optional filters, which cleanly separates it from the singular map_job and from job/jobs siblings. It never explicitly names a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear operational context: filter by URL partial match, status, or date range, and paginate via page/page_size. It does not say when to prefer map_job, job, or batch instead, so alternative routing is absent.

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