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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description goes beyond this by adding concrete behavioral and commercial limits: only the top three ranked opportunities are free, the full feed requires Speedbot Pro (10 USDC lifetime), and the operation is read-only with 'no applying or spending.' This is genuinely additive context that does not contradict the annotations.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, the second adds tier/pricing constraints, and the third states the safety profile. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only discovery tool with rich annotations, the description covers scope, tier limitations, and side-effect freedom. However, with no output schema and no parameter-level guidance for limit or min_reward_usdc, an agent still lacks specifics about result shape and how to craft an optimal query.

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 25% (only agent_key has a description). The tool description does not explain limit, capabilities, or min_reward_usdc beyond implying capabilities feed the ranking. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but does not; the agent is left to guess parameter semantics from names alone.

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: 'Find paid work across supported external agent markets.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like speedbot_earning_opportunities or the exchange_* family by narrowing scope to external agent markets, and the rest of the description reinforces that purpose.

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 implies usage—when you want paid work opportunities from external markets—but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as speedbot_earning_opportunities or speedbot_exchange_feed. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection heuristics, so the agent must infer the right context.

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