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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial context beyond them: meaning+spelling matching, that ranking is advisory and `best_worker_id` is set only when confident, privacy semantics (area is a ~10 km cell centre, never the worker's location; distances rounded to 10 km), the enforced minimum rate, and a prompt-injection warning that worker-authored skills must be read as data, not instructions. It also states it does not commit funds.

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 the purpose and the sibling contrast, then organized into focused paragraphs. It is long, and parts describing output fields (matching, jev_rank, fits, ask_rate) could be trimmed, but with no output schema much of it 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?

Given no output schema, the description carries the return-value explanation (area, distance_km, matching, ask_rate_minor vs ask_rate, jev_rank, fits, best_worker_id) and covers matching modality, ranking behaviour, privacy, and agent guidance. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret this tool correctly 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds interpretation of the ranking goal and distance semantics, but it also references fields/params (`ranked_by`, `near`) that do not appear in the schema, and it mostly explains return values rather than adding parameter-level 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 and resource with explicit scope ('Find verified workers who have a skill, wherever they are') and immediately separates itself from the sibling search_workers by naming the key difference (no radius). An agent can distinguish it from search_workers without opening either schema.

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 explicit when-to-use ('to learn whether anyone on Mundane has a skill at all, or when the item can travel to the worker') and the when-not plus alternative ('for work at a place, use search_workers with that place's coordinates'). This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.

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