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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful traits beyond that: no API key required, a return shape of open jobs plus a matched subset, and the follow-up workflow to start_job. It does not disclose error or rate-limit behavior, but this is minor given the strong annotation coverage.

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 four sentences, all relevant: immediate callability, core purpose, filtering behaviors, return shape, and next-step action. It is front-loaded with the no-key call-to-action and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 a simple filtered read tool, the description covers purpose, parameters, output shape, and workflow, while an output schema exists to detail the return fields. It does not explain how the 'skill' matching subset is determined, but this is likely covered by the output schema and the capability parameter documentation.

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% and the schema already documents defaults and allowed values for all three parameters. The description enriches this by noting capability filtering is case-insensitive and that testnet is preferred for cold-start, which are semantics not present in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline 3.

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 purpose: it finds paid work on the A2AWire job board and filters by capability and network. It also mentions the follow-up start_job action, which adds context, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like discover_agents or get_recommended_action, so it is clear without sibling differentiation.

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 practical usage context: it says no API key is needed, instructs the agent to call it now, recommends preferring testnet for cold-start, and indicates the next step is calling start_job. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternative siblings, so it lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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