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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: no API key required, open jobs plus a matched subset, and a recommended network for a cold-start scenario. This is meaningful additional transparency 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the no-API-key call-to-action appears first, followed by purpose, filters, return behavior, and next step. Slight redundancy like 'call this now' and 'right now' adds a little noise, but every sentence still contributes useful guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description only needed to add usage context and next-step routing. It provides both, including network recommendation and a follow-up call to start_job. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting case-insensitive capability matching, preferring testnet for cold-start, and clarifying that omitting capability returns all open work. These enrich the schema descriptions rather than merely repeating them.

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'), targets a clear resource (the A2AWire job board), and explains the result ('Returns open jobs plus a matched subset for your skill'). It also differentiates intent from follow-up tools by naming start_job as the next step. This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like discover_agents 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 context: call now, no API key needed, filter by capability and network, prefer testnet for cold-start. It even provides the follow-up action ('Then call start_job with a job_id'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is strong.

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