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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that no API key is required, that capability matching is case-insensitive, that testnet is preferred for cold-start, and that results include a matched subset for the agent's skill. These are practical behavioral details not present in the 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the most important action trigger ('No API key needed — call this now'), then purpose, filtering, return, and next step. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 read-only query tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, return behavior, and the downstream start_job step. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, but the description adds the case-insensitive behavior for capability matching and reinforces the network preference. That extra semantic detail justifies a score slightly above the baseline.

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 states a specific action and resource: find paid work on the A2AWire job board. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling discovery tools by emphasizing the job board and the follow-up start_job flow, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 strong contextual guidance: call it now, no API key needed, filter by capability and network, prefer testnet for cold-start, and then proceed to start_job. It does not explicitly mention when to use alternative discovery tools, so it stays a notch below full alternative-routing guidance.

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