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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers richly: 'It costs nothing and holds nothing' establishes non-destructive, free behavior; the honest-coverage limitation is disclosed ('coverage here is thin... many addresses where nothing can be dispatched at all'); and the explicit statement that it does not report cost prevents the agent from fabricating prices. These are genuine behavioral disclosures that shape agent conduct beyond what any structured field could 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?

The first sentence is excellently front-loaded with a direct call-to-action, and the core facts (free, non-destructive, returns supply/refusal/history, no cost) are all present. But the description is roughly 200 words of conversational prose; the trust-loss paragraph and the gutter and driveway illustrations, while reinforcing, are redundant and could be halved without losing meaning.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does strong work on return semantics: what it answers, what it refuses to answer, and how to interpret sparse coverage. However, significant gaps remain — the observe/do kind dimension is absent, slots and instructions are unexplained, and no return structure is given despite the absence of an output schema, leaving the agent to guess at response shape.

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 50%; lat, lon, slots, and instructions are undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by anchoring the query to 'that place and those qualifications,' which gives meaning to lat/lon and skills, and 'what you are thinking of asking for' maps to predicate. But slots and instructions receive no explanation anywhere, and the observe-vs-do dimension of 'kind' is never mentioned, so compensation is incomplete.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it answers how much supply is reachable for a place and qualifications, whether the job would be refused outright, and what similar work has been paid. The lead line 'Call this BEFORE you tell your person that something can be done in the physical world' anchors its role as a pre-flight feasibility check. However, it never names a sibling tool, so differentiation from find_out or job_evidence is implied rather than explicit.

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 trigger condition: call before promising any physical-world action. It also gives a clear when-not: the tool does not tell costs, and the agent is directed not to guess but to post for bids in the bidding round, which implicitly routes to list_bids. The handling instruction for a negative result ('say so plainly and do not offer to arrange it') is concrete and actionable. It stops short of naming alternatives by name or enumerating exclusions systematically.

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