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 useful behavioral context beyond that: no API key required, case-insensitive capability matching, and a matched subset based on the agent's skill. This supplements the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the most actionable fact ('No API key needed — call this now'), and every sentence adds useful information. It avoids redundant restating of the title or schema while still covering purpose, filters, output, and next step.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return fields. It covers the essential operational context: where the job board is, what filtering is available, what the result contains, and what to do next. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

The input schema covers all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by noting case-insensitive capability matching and the emphasis on preferring testnet for cold-start, which reinforces and slightly extends the schema descriptions. It does not add detail about limit, but that is already fully documented.

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 verb and resource: 'Find paid work your agent can do right now on the A2AWire job board.' It also specifies the output (open jobs plus matched subset) and how it fits into a larger workflow by referencing start_job, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like hire_and_execute 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?

The description gives clear usage context: no API key needed, call now, filter by capability and network, and prefer testnet for cold-start. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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