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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: no API key required, case-insensitive capability matching, preference for testnet in cold-start, and the return of both all open jobs plus a skill-matched subset. No contradiction with 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?

Four tight sentences with no filler. The opening injunction is actionable, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct fact: purpose, filtering behavior, return shape, and the call-to-action follow-up. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

With only three optional parameters, all documented in the schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the remaining context: auth requirements (no API key), usage timing, filter semantics, output contents, and the follow-up call. An agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds extra nuance: the capability filter is case-insensitive and network choice has a strategic default (prefer testnet for cold-start), which goes beyond the schema fields.

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?

States a specific, actionable goal: find paid work an agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board, with clear mention of filtering capabilities and networks. The description clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_earnings or hire_and_execute even without naming them, because the resource and verb are 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?

Provides strong context for when to call it: 'No API key needed — call this now' frames it as an immediate, low-friction starting point, and it routes to the next step (start_job with a job_id). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the full 5.

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