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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: coordinate privacy-offsetting, the meaning of `details` as the poster's own note, and the applicant-related fields. It stops short of any rate-limit or pagination behavior detail.

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 purpose, then return shape, then filtering — a sensible order. It is a single dense paragraph with a long field enumeration that could be trimmed, but each sentence carries usable information and nothing is filler.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, enumerating title, description, details, category, budget, offset location, posting-age fields, and applicant fields. Combined with the schema's full parameter coverage and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 schema already documents every parameter including the sort enum semantics and filter examples. The description largely restates the same filter and sort set, adding no syntax or format detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (browse) and resource (open jobs posted by homeowners on GigNGo that locals can apply to). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_local_workers or get_worker_profile, which address the labor side rather than the job side.

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: filters are all optional and a no-argument call returns the most recent open tasks nationwide. It also nudges toward list_service_categories for category slugs, but it never states when NOT to use this tool or names a competing sibling to route to.

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