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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds value beyond them by enumerating what the response contains (service scope, evidence, limitations, availability timestamps) and explicitly ruling out side effects like contacting providers or placing orders.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return contents, then exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by summarizing returned fields, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter semantics: with 0% schema coverage, the description should explain query/category behavior to be complete.

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% with two parameters (query, category). The description says nothing about what query matches against or what the category enum values mean, so an agent must infer parameter usage entirely from the bare 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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Search independently reviewed AI services currently accepting work.' It conveys scope ('independently reviewed', 'currently accepting work') beyond the title, though it does not name or differentiate from siblings check_availability or get_service_evidence.

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?

The negative scope ('Does not contact providers, place orders, or execute jobs') implies when this tool is appropriate versus action tools, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of check_availability or get_service_evidence. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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