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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful non-obvious context: no API key required, network preference for cold-start, and the fact that the result includes both open jobs and a matched subset. No contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, starting with the most actionable fact and then covering purpose, filters, result, and next step in four sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers the full invocation path: prerequisite, purpose, configuration, expected result, and follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters, so the baseline is strong. The description adds extra meaning by noting that capability matching is case-insensitive and advising testnet for cold-start, but it does not add semantics for the limit parameter beyond the schema.

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-resource pair: find paid work on the A2AWire job board. It also distinguishes its function by specifying filters (capability, network) and return contents (open jobs plus a matched subset), which clearly separates it from siblings like check_earnings or get_recommended_action.

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 guidance on when to invoke the tool: call it now, no API key needed, prefer testnet for cold-start, and follow up by calling start_job with a job_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative lookup tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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