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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavior: 'No API key needed,' case-insensitive filtering, preference for testnet, return of open jobs plus a matched subset, and a follow-up call to start_job. These go well beyond the annotations and provide actionable detail.

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 with no waste. It front-loads a call to action, then states purpose, filters, return, and next step. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 3 well-documented parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description covers the core workflow: what it does, how to filter, what it returns, and what to do next. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or error handling, but those are minor for a simple read-only tool.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds extra semantics: 'case-insensitive' for capability and 'prefer testnet for cold-start' for network. It does not mention limit, but the schema covers that, so the baseline is 3 with a bonus for the added context.

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 verb and resource: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It also clarifies what the tool returns and how to proceed, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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' and 'prefer testnet for cold-start' guide parameter choice. It also directs the user to call start_job afterward. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools, so it lacks exclusions.

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