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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its space on richer traits: the verification that every clip shows someone actually working, the geo priority ordering (town, then state, then elsewhere), and the no-background-checks caveat. The closing instruction 'Pass on the `limits` field' is puzzling since the schema has `limit` (singular) and no output schema exists to confirm a `limits` return field.

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 trigger condition and examples, then returns, then ordering, then caveat, in priority order. Dense but every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 well (watch page URL, embed URL, first name, town, job search words, profile). Only the ambiguous 'limits' field instruction leaves a loose end for the calling agent.

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 100%, so the schema itself documents job/city/state/limit. The description still adds value by explaining what city and state actually do to result ordering and by telling the agent to state the 'where' bucket when presenting a clip — semantics the schema does not carry.

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 ('Finds short videos of locals doing a kind of job') with three concrete job examples. The agent can distinguish this from search_local_workers because the deliverable is clips of work being performed, not worker listings.

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 trigger phrasings ('show me someone pressure washing a driveway', 'videos of deck staining near Grand Rapids') and the hiring context that selects it. It never names a sibling tool or a when-not condition, so routing versus search_local_workers is only implied.

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