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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by explaining the mine:true scoping behavior and listing the service attributes returned. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but given the annotation coverage, this is a reasonable level of transparency.

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 four short sentences that front-load the core purpose and include only essential distinctions: scope, exclusions, the mine:true condition, and the Work/Jobs contrast. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main output fields and the mine:true auth path, which is helpful given there is no output schema. However, it leaves q, limit, and offset semantics unexplained and does not clarify the 'Work' vs 'Jobs' distinction fully, so an agent may still need to guess about search and pagination behavior.

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 only 20% (agent_key only). The description explains only one parameter, 'mine:true,' leaving q, limit, and offset without any semantic guidance in either the schema or the description. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 opens with a specific verb and resource—'Discover provider-published fixed-price services'—and enumerates the returned attributes (required input, structured output, acceptance criteria, delivery time, availability, buyer totals). It also distinguishes itself from ordering/payment tools with 'No order or payment' and contrasts 'Work' with 'Jobs', making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

It gives a concrete usage condition: 'Use mine:true with authentication to manage your own paused or expired offers' and states a when-not via 'No order or payment.' It stops short of naming alternate sibling tools explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this discovery tool over ordering tools.

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