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

Annotations already mark this as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly limits the search to lawful work, scopes it to the principal, and discloses that the tool does not guarantee income or spend money automatically. This clarifies the non-transactional, safe nature of the operation beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences with the main action front-loaded, followed by two relevant caveats. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 discovery tool, the core behavior is covered, including important non-guarantees. However, the description omits the return value format and does not position the tool among its many overlapping siblings such as earn_now, find_money_opportunities, and make_money_for_me, leaving tool-selection ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters (goal, limit, skills, currency). While the parameter names are somewhat suggestive, ambiguous aspects such as what 'goal' represents, what 'limit' caps, or how 'currency' is used remain unaddressed.

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 ('Find') and resource ('lawful paid-work opportunities'), and scopes it to 'this principal,' which clearly conveys the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate it from very similar siblings like find_money_opportunities, make_money_for_me, or search_global_earn, so it misses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The caveats 'No income guarantee and no automatic spend' are behavioral warnings rather than selection criteria, and the description never mentions more appropriate siblings such as earn_now or make_money_for_me.

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