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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing that calls can take ~50 seconds due to Jumia connection challenges and may fail with a retryable 503. It also notes the empty-list behavior for zero results, which is operational context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with verb, scope, and return shape, then alternatives, then operational caveats in a tight three-sentence structure. No wasted framing; each sentence carries a distinct payload.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and needn't be restated, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: country validity, pagination limits, empty-result behavior, sibling routing, and latency/failure expectations for a slow, flaky target.

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 country codes, the 50-page cap, and keyword semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the country list but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what structured fields provide, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) and resource (Jumia country storefront), enumerates supported country codes, and previews the returned fields and pagination flags. An agent can distinguish it from jumia_category, jumia_product, and jumia_countries without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use jumia_category to browse a department instead, jumia_product for one item's detail, and jumia_countries to see the storefronts.' This gives concrete when-to-use alternatives rather than implied usage.

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