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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It discloses the relevance gate (jobs below the threshold are not returned), the no-match behavior (`results: []`), the presence of untrusted fields, and that no API key is required. No contradiction with 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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary details. It is somewhat long but every sentence adds value, covering ranking, fields, workflow, and security. Could be more structured but is appropriately concise given the amount of context.

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 the tool's complexity (semantic search, ranking, trust signals) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the relevance gate, empty results, returned fields, bid workflow, no-key requirement, and untrusted data warning. An agent has enough information to call 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 67% (query and min_budget are described). The description adds minimal new meaning for these parameters—query is already described as 'What you can do' and min_budget as a filter—and it does not mention the `limit` parameter at all. It provides slight context on semantic usage but does not compensate for the missing `limit` description.

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 a specific verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('open jobs posted by buyers'), and a distinguishing method ('by meaning' / semantic search). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from the sibling `search` tool by focusing on jobs and semantic matching.

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 implies when to use it (find jobs you can do) and even links to the next step (Bid with sendQuote). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like `search`, leaving some inference to the agent.

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