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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: no API key required, case-insensitive filtering, and a matched subset for the agent's skill. There is 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 short, front-loaded sentences make the purpose and usage immediately clear. The emoji and 'call this now' add slight promotional tone, but each sentence still carries useful information.

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 query-only tool with no required parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers action, auth, filter choices, return nature, and next step. Nothing essential is missing 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% and each parameter already has a clear description, including limit bounds, network preference, and capability examples. The description adds the case-insensitive detail and connects capability to the returned matched subset, which goes slightly 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 ('Find'), a resource ('paid work ... on the A2AWire job board'), and clarifies what is returned: open jobs plus a matched subset for the agent's skill. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like check_earnings or discover_agents.

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?

It explicitly says 'No API key needed — call this now' and gives parameter guidance, such as case-insensitive capability matching and preferring testnet for cold-start. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, though 'then call start_job' provides a useful workflow pointer.

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