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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world search, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context: public text is untrusted user content (a prompt-injection warning) and the geographic scope of results. It still omits pagination, result ordering, and default result-set size.

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?

Three short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The untrusted-content sentence sits between purpose and scope, slightly disrupting flow, but nothing is wasted.

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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It covers safety and geography but leaves query semantics, filter behavior, and result shape entirely unspecified, so an agent cannot tell how to invoke it effectively.

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, and it largely does not. It implicitly gestures at the category enum ('physical and digital tasks') and at district ('Hong Kong is the featured local market'), but never explains q, category, or district as parameters or how they combine.

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: 'Find open tasks'. Clear what the tool returns at a high level. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like get_task or list_cases, so an agent must infer the boundaries.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The geographic remark ('anywhere worldwide; Hong Kong is the featured local market') is market context, not a selection rule for choosing this tool over siblings such as search_offers or list_my_actors.

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