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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds useful context beyond them: page size cap of 25 results, the fields each result carries (starting price, flags, Work Insiders page link), and pagination through offset/limit.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and scope, then the return shape and the hand-off to get_tool. No filler or restated title text.

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 an 11-parameter search with no output schema, the description summarizes the return payload and page size and points to siblings for drill-down and category enumeration, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing sort semantics or empty-result behavior, both of which remain schema-side.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the price normalization rules and enum default. The description only re-enumerates the filter dimensions and the 25-per-page cap, adding little syntax or meaning beyond the structured fields — 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 — searching the Work Insiders directory of 1,000+ tools — and names the filter axes. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling workinsiders_get_tool, which handles single-tool detail, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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 context (free text plus filters) and routes to workinsiders_get_tool for full detail on one result, with workinsiders_list_categories referenced for category slugs. It never states a when-not-to-use condition or contrasts with compare_tools/find_alternatives, so it stops short of an explicit routing rule set.

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