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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing result ordering semantics (town area-page locals first with relation 'in'/'serves'/'nearby' plus miles, then in-town locals, filmed-work profiles boosted), the pagination contract ('up to `limit` locals per page'), and that badges are self-reported. That ordering logic is behavior an agent could not infer from any structured 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 use case and examples before any mechanics, and most sentences carry new information (ordering, return fields, slug fallback). The state/city hyphenation rules are repeated from the schema descriptions, which is the main redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself and does so fully: name, bio, skills, prices, reviews, filmedTheirWork/workVideoCount, vouches, service area, profile URL. Combined with the ordering and pagination notes, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining what `city` actually changes (area-page locals ranked first with a relation and mileage) and by reinforcing the slug/state formatting contract. It restates some schema formatting guidance, which limits it to a 4.

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 real local people on GigNGo by service and place for home jobs and errands, with concrete category examples (assembly, yard work, cleaning, moving, hauling, repairs, pickups). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_worker_profile (single known person) and list_service_categories (slug lookup).

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when someone wants a person nearby to do a job') backed by four natural-language query examples, and routes the agent to list_service_categories when the service slug is unknown. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion.

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