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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes far beyond that, disclosing the relevance gate, that no match yields results: [], the exact result fields, that bids counts include dead bids, and that it needs no key. The injected-data warning about `_untrusted` is a substantial behavioral disclosure not captured anywhere in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose followed by ranking behavior, returned fields, filter, next action, auth and security note. Every sentence carries information, though the nested parentheticals make it denser than necessary.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the burden and delivers: it lists the returned fields, explains ranking and the relevance gate, describes the empty-result case, and covers auth and prompt-injection safety. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 67% – query and min_budget are already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates them ('stated budget at or above'). The `limit` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap and only marginally exceeds baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with the search modality ('Find open jobs posted by buyers, by meaning'), so the agent understands this is semantic search over job briefs rather than a keyword or ID lookup. It never contrasts with the sibling 'search' or 'searchInsights' tools, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear usage context: pass a free-text description of what you can do, and route the follow-up to sendQuote({job_id, price_usdc, …}), which orients the agent in the workflow. It does not state when NOT to use it or name the sibling search tools as alternatives, so no exclusions are provided.

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