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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context: the result is a page over the full unfiltered catalog and it returns the three sitemap fields. Missing only paging/rate-limit behavior.

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 compact sentence that front-loads scope, then field list, then the discriminating constraint. Zero 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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values beyond the field hint it gives, and the schema covers pagination. Complete for a read-only catalog lister; only marginal gaps remain.

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 both page and page_size fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond echoing 'page', 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?

Names the specific resource (Meta's own job sitemap) and the exact shape of what a call yields (id/url/last_modified, full-catalog page). The parenthetical 'no filtering' cleanly separates it from meta_jobs_search without requiring the 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?

'No filtering' tells the agent this is the unfiltered enumeration route and implicitly points to a filtered search sibling, which is meaningful when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming meta_jobs_search explicitly or stating when a bulk catalog crawl is preferable.

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