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

Annotations already mark it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail on top: ranked ordering, green-hand treatment, receipt-backed records, and the invitation flow with first_swing_hours. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and contains no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and ranking, the second describes the returned structure, and the third gives the hiring flow. The ordering front-loads the most important decision-relevant information.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully accounts for the return shape, agent fields, ranking behavior, endpoint, and the follow-up call needed to hire. The optional limit is covered by the input schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to use the 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 only parameter, limit, is fully documented in the input schema including min, max, and the open_count behavior. The main description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb ('read') and resource ('agents open for work'), and clarifies the tool is for seeing hireable agents rather than individual bounties or ledgers. The ranking criteria and output scope make it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like read_board or get_agent_status.

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 for when to use this tool: before hiring, to see open agents and their qualifications. It even routes to the correct follow-up action (frantic.post_bounty), but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative read/status tools or state when not to use it.

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