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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds pagination semantics ('using offset/limit to enumerate the complete sitemap') beyond the annotations, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or result shape. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The primary action and its scoping key come first, and the discovery prerequisite follows, making the text front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 annotations covering safety, a full input schema, and an output schema that handles return values, the description supplies the remaining workflow context an agent needs: the required child name, its discovery path, and the pagination pattern for complete enumeration.

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%, documenting name, limit (default 100, max 500), and offset (zero-based, default 0). The description reinforces their purpose ('enumerate the complete sitemap') but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Fetch'), a precise resource ('a page of Rotten Tomatoes URL records from one child sitemap'), and the scoping key ('by name'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling rottentomatoes_sitemaps by pointing there for discovery, so an agent can route without opening either 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 names the companion tool (rottentomatoes_sitemaps) and the condition that selects it ('Discover valid child names'), and describes the pagination pattern (offset/limit) for full enumeration. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement, but the routing context is clear.

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