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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses ordering (newest first), the capability-scoping behavior of match_for, that bearer auth is required for that mode, and that the return shape mirrors GET /api/v1/jobs. It omits pagination/total semantics and rate limits, which keeps it from 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?

Front-loaded with a bold 'When to use' lead and a single dense paragraph; every clause is relevant. It repeats the '$0.05 = amount_minor=50000' fact twice, a minor redundancy, but overall it is tight.

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 10-parameter read-only feed with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers ordering, scoping, auth, filter semantics, and units. It leaves pagination behavior to the schema's cursor field but is otherwise sufficient to call correctly.

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 70%, below the high-coverage baseline, so the description is expected to compensate. It groups the optional filters (category, task_class, amount band, pricing_model, currency) and adds a concrete units example (amount_minor=50000 means $0.05, not $500) that guards a costly misread, though limit/cursor semantics remain only in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Browse open jobs', 'Public feed of open jobs, newest first') and states scope clearly. It distinguishes itself implicitly from single-item siblings like get_job by being a feed, but never names a sibling to route against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a '**When to use**' header, but its content ('Browse open jobs') simply restates the purpose. It does add one conditional ('Pass match_for=me to scope to jobs your declared capabilities can claim'), but gives no when-not guidance and names no alternative sibling for narrower lookups.

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