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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context: no API key is required, it returns open jobs plus a matched subset for the skill, and network preference matters for cold-start. These details go beyond the annotation baseline.

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 three sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: a call-to-action with the key prerequisite, the core function with filtering guidance, and the return/next-step behavior. The most important instruction is 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?

For a read-only, idempotent list tool with an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly when to call, how to filter, what to expect, and what to do next. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 meaningful extra semantics: filtering by capability is case-insensitive, and network selection has a cold-start preference. It also clarifies that the capability filter produces a matched subset, which supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_agents by focusing on paid job listings rather than agent discovery or configuration. The core function is immediately understandable.

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 context for when to use it: no API key needed, call now, and prefer testnet for cold-start. It also provides a next-step instruction ('Then call start_job with a job_id to begin earning'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full exclusions and alternatives.

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