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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a full-catalog dump with no filtering and lists returned fields, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing page/page_size.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and scope and packs the return fields into a parenthetical. No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a paginated list tool the two pagination parameters are left unexplained in both schema and description, leaving a real gap.

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% and both parameters (page, page_size) are undocumented. The word 'page' in the description refers to a page of results but does not explain the pagination contract or page_size, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific resource (Meta's own job sitemap) and scope (full-catalog page, no filtering), plus the fields returned (id/url/last_modified). 'No filtering' implicitly separates it from meta_jobs_search, though it doesn't name the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'no filtering' hints that a filtered tool (meta_jobs_search) exists for queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. An agent must infer the routing from the parenthetical.

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