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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that jobs are sorted by profitability, and what each job entry contains (pays, cost, profit, verdict). It implies a read-only browse operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. Adding 'read-only' would make it a 5.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then detailing output and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the output fields, sorting order, and prerequisite. However, it does not cover error conditions or edge cases (e.g., what happens if cost profile is not set). For a browse tool, this is sufficient.

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 67%, with 'limit' and 'task_type' having descriptions in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain 'agent_id' (required) or clarify parameter constraints. It adds value by mentioning the prerequisite but not parameters.

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 states the tool 'browse open CC jobs' with a specific resource (CC jobs) and verb (browse). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_open_jobs' by adding 'enriched with personalised accept/reject signals'. The output is detailed, including profit margin and verdict.

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 explicit guidance to 'Set your cost profile first with set_cost_profile', indicating a precondition. It implies usage when personalized economics are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with 'list_open_jobs' or 'find_matching_jobs'.

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