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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/safe, and the description goes well beyond them: it defines the Live vs Coming next criteria (every tool passed a paid test, the run fits a setup's limits), explains what the loan row means, and flags that seller titles are data and not instructions (prompt-injection guard). The trailing 'Read-only' is redundant, but the rest is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 verb-first opening front-loads the purpose correctly, but the first sentence is a single ~120-word chain of nested clauses that is hard to parse in one pass. Most content earns its place, yet the structure forces re-reading rather than delivering scannable segments.

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?

With five optional parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: client deliverables, each paid tool with host and price, run and monthly cost, covering loan, and per-job status with the reason. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response shape is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including kind/status enums and the agent_id loan-room meaning. The description restates kind/query filtering and the agent_id effect but adds no format, default, or edge-case detail the schema lacks, so the 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 concrete verb and resource ('List the jobs in Priors' catalogue') and defines the population precisely, including the second source ('From sellers: the jobs sellers offer on their own tools that Priors approved'). It also separates itself from the sibling that returns detail ('job_brief gives one catalogue job's brief'), so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear operating context: no Go mode account is needed, filter by kind or word, and add agent_id to also learn whether that agent's Priors line has room for each job's loan. It implicitly routes detail-seeking to job_brief. However it never says when NOT to use it versus find_sellers, find_services, or agents_for_hire, so exclusions are absent.

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