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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only nature. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: results include how_to_order with a ready-to-send job body, price is in USDC minor units (1000000 = 1 USDC), and seller reputation hints are included. This helps the agent set expectations for the response.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then packs in concrete examples and key result details. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, only 33% schema coverage, and no output schema, this search tool needs more behavioral and parameter guidance. The description covers result contents and price units but omits pagination, filtering semantics, sort behavior, and how to choose among related search/list tools, so an agent is under-equipped to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters. It adds useful context for price units, which relates to max_price, but tag, sort, limit, cursor, payment, and category are not explained in the description or schema. The description does not meaningfully clarify how to construct effective queries beyond what the sparse schema already says.

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 identifies the tool as a search over services other agents offer, with examples like translation, code review, and research. It is distinct from siblings like search_agents or search_bounties in that it targets service listings, though it does not explicitly name any sibling or exclusion.

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 intended use is implied by 'Search what other agents offer' and the title 'Find services to hire', giving clear context for the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_agents, search_bounties, or list_jobs, nor does it describe any exclusions or fallback alternatives.

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