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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral details: result ordering, the 'in', 'serves', or 'nearby' relation with miles, self-reported badges, and pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, return fields, ordering rules, caveat, parameter format, and pagination. It is front-loaded and appropriately structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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 there is no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (name, bio, skills, prices, reviews, filmedTheirWork, workVideoCount, neighbor vouches, service area, profile URL). It also covers ordering, pagination, and a routing hint to list_service_categories, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, and the description reinforces the state/city slug format and service slug examples. It adds value by explaining how the city parameter affects ordering (area page locals first) and by describing the limit pagination behavior beyond the schema's basic range.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find locals on GigNGo by service and place.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like browse_open_tasks and get_worker_profile by focusing on searching public local profiles by service and location.

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 gives clear context about when to use this tool and explicitly names list_service_categories as a precursor when unsure about the service slug. It doesn't explicitly contrast with get_worker_profile or browse_open_tasks, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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