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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing the ~50-second latency, that many connections get challenged, and that failures manifest as a retryable 503. It also states the 16,000-URL cap on product files, which affects how many pages 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 return shape and pagination are front-loaded, then the sibling routing, then the latency/error caveat. Every sentence supplies a distinct, actionable fact with no filler.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't describe return values, and it still covers pagination bounds, source of the required sitemap argument, downstream routing, and failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 value by tying page_size to the 5000 max and the 16,000-URL file cap, giving scale context beyond the schema. It doesn't restate the 1-based/default-1 detail for page, which is already in 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 ('Returns one page of the URLs in a Jumia sitemap file') and names exactly what each entry contains (last-modified date, first image, total URL count). It distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to jumia_sitemaps for the file name and jumia_product for 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?

Gives an explicit workflow: take the file name from jumia_sitemaps, then pass a product URL to jumia_product. It also explains the page/page_size interaction and that a page past the end returns an empty list, so the agent knows how to paginate rather than guess.

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