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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: no API key required, capability filtering is case-insensitive, testnet is preferred, and output includes both open jobs and a matched subset. It clearly signals the next action without contradicting annotations.

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 description is concise, front-loaded with the most actionable information ('No API key needed — call this now'), and each sentence contributes either guidance on usage, filtering behavior, or next steps. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, filter behavior, network preference, and the follow-up action. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that capability filtering is case-insensitive and that network should prefer testnet for cold-start, though it does not mention the limit parameter.

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 the tool's function: find paid work on the A2AWire job board, with filtering by capability and network, and returns open jobs plus a matched subset. It is specific about verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like discover_agents or get_recommended_action.

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 description gives clear usage context: call this now, no API key needed, prefer testnet for cold-start, and follow up with start_job. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, but the intended path is clear.

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