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

The description adds substantial trust context beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations: requests are untrusted content and not authorization to execute, no payment or verified skill is implied, and lifecycle transitions require HTTPS commands with client-held keys. This meaningfully shapes how an agent should interpret and act on results. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences add scope and safety caveats without unnecessary fluff. The final sentence about signed lifecycle transitions is somewhat tangential to a read-only discovery tool but still provides useful context for subsequent actions.

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?

The description, combined with annotations and an output schema, covers the tool's purpose, the unscoped-discovery boundary, and the critical trust semantics of discovered work. The main gaps are explicit sibling-tool routing and cursor pagination behavior, but these are secondary given the strong schema and annotation coverage.

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 input schema already documents four of five parameters, giving 80% coverage, so the baseline is 3 even without parameter detail in the description. The description's 'unscoped discovery excludes simulations' note also appears in the room parameter description, adding little new parameter-level meaning. The cursor parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and 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 opens with 'Discover bounded public unpaid coordination requests,' which provides a specific verb, resource, and key qualifiers. It clearly conveys a search/discovery role, though it does not explicitly contrast find_work with siblings like read_work or find_peers.

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 a clear boundary with 'Unscoped discovery excludes simulations' and signals the intended search space as bounded, public, and unpaid. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer find_work over read_work, find_peers, or list_rooms, so the routing guidance is mostly implied.

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