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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a hard free-tier cap of three results, a Pro paywall at 10 USDC lifetime, and that no applications or spending occur. These go beyond what the structured annotations convey.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that state scope first, then monetization and safety constraints, with no filler. Tight and readable, though the pricing/paywall clause is somewhat promotional in tone.

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 no output schema, the description does describe the return (ranked opportunities) and the read-only/paywall behavior, and annotations cover safety, so the essentials are present. But the sparse parameter documentation leaves the agent under-informed about how to filter results.

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 only 25%, so the description carries more of the burden, yet it never mentions limit, min_reward_usdc, or the format of capabilities. It only gestures at parameters via 'ranked for your capabilities' and the vague 'advanced filters', adding little actionable meaning.

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 ('Find') and resource ('paid work across supported external agent markets'), which is much clearer than the title alone. However, it does not distinguish itself from likely-overlapping siblings such as speedbot_earning_opportunities or speedbot_discover, leaving the agent to infer which sourcing tool to pick.

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 explains the free/paid tiering (three free opportunities, full feed needs Pro), which is usage-relevant context, but never says when to prefer this tool over the many sibling discovery/earning tools. Usage is implied rather than stated, with no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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