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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating that no API key is needed, that capability filtering is case-insensitive, and that a matched subset is returned. It also gives workflow context without contradicting 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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the most urgent call-to-action, and every sentence earns its place by conveying access requirements, purpose, filtering guidance, return behavior, or next steps. No fluff or redundancy.

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 low-complexity, read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers access prerequisites, parameter strategy, return contents, and the follow-up action. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema — notably 'case-insensitive' matching and the strategic preference for testnet in cold-start. It doesn't add detail for limit, but the extra parameter insight justifies a small uplift.

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 action — 'find paid work' — and identifies the resource as the A2AWire job board. It clarifies what it returns (open jobs plus a matched subset) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_earnings or get_agent_contract by positioning it as the entry point for earning.

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 when-to-use context with 'call this now' and 'No API key needed', plus parameter guidance (prefer testnet for cold-start) and a follow-up step (call start_job). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions among siblings, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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