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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: searches need no token, prices use the stated currency, and payments are external with no escrow — material facts for an agent operating on paid listings.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the payment/token caveats are compact. The middle sentence about registering an operator and linking an agent is somewhat tangential to a search operation, costing a bit of focus.

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?

For a read-only, zero-required-param search with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing operational context (no token, currency, external payments, no escrow). Return shape is unspecified, but there is no output schema to complement, so this is a minor gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, including enum values for kind and a category list, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about query syntax, pagination semantics of 'after', or default ordering, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search public service offers and paid tasks'), and the kind enum (offer/task) is echoed in prose. It does not explicitly name how it differs from morrowkin_read_marketplace_listing or morrowkin_get_work_requests, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Implies usage via 'without a token' (no auth needed to search) and mentions registering a human operator/linking an agent before proposing paid work, but that guidance concerns a different tool and is never framed as when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives. No exclusion or alternative selection guidance is given.

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