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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'No API key needed — call this now' (auth requirement) and 'Returns open jobs plus a matched subset for your skill' (return structure). No contradiction with annotations; adds context about cold-start preference.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the most actionable info ('No API key needed'). Every clause earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 tool's simplicity (read-only search), the description covers everything needed: what it returns, how to filter, and the next step (start_job). Output schema exists separately, so return details are covered elsewhere. No missing information for correct invocation.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds extra semantics: capability filtering is case-insensitive (not in schema), and network preference guidance ('prefer testnet for cold-start'). This goes beyond the schema descriptions, enhancing agent understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: finding paid work on the A2AWire job board, with filtering by capability and network. It specifies the resource (job board) and the verb (find), and distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to start_job as a follow-up action, making its role unambiguous.

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 clear usage context: 'call this now', filter by capability and network, prefer testnet for cold-start. It names a follow-up tool (start_job) and implies when to use this over others, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative search tools. Slight gap in exclusions, but overall guidance is strong.

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