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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds real context beyond them: the terms are "live," rewards are paid in USDC as half the fee, and no signing up is required. It stops short of describing the response shape or whether terms expire.

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 imperative "Ask for work," and each clause carries information (return value, reward mechanics, no-write guarantee). The em-dash aside is dense but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does describe the terms and hand-off request reasonably well. A single optional parameter keeps complexity low; missing only response format details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the optional `name` parameter's dual role (embedded in the hand-off request and determining whether introductions count) is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, 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 action ("Ask for work") and enumerates what it returns: live reward terms for introductions and buyer referrals, plus the exact request to hand to another agent. That distinguishes it from sibling certificate/authorship tools, though it never names an adjacent sibling to route against.

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?

"Ask for work" implies the trigger case and "Writes nothing: there is no form and nothing to sign up for" reassures it can be called freely, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to siblings like legacy_testament.

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