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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the return type (public worker profiles with specific fields), sorting order (by rating), and pagination behavior (returns up to `limit` workers). It implies a read-only operation through 'Search' and 'Returns', though it does not explicitly state safety or mention potential errors or empty results.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then details the output and provides usage notes. Every sentence contributes meaningful information—the return fields, sorting, pagination, and the relation to list_service_categories. There is no redundant filler or overly technical jargon.

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?

The description is contextually complete for the given complexity. It covers the input parameters, output content, sorting, pagination, and a related tool. It does not mention error handling or authentication, but these are not critical for a simple search operation. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because the description enumerates the expected fields.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and already includes descriptions. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples for state and city slug formats, reiterating the default limit, and explaining the service slug context. While the description largely echoes the schema, it enhances comprehension with practical examples and usage context, justifying a score above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: searching for local workers by service category and location on GigNGo. It specifies the resource (workers), the action (search), and the filtering criteria. The description also distinguishes it from the sibling tools by mentioning the returned profile fields, sorting by rating, and pagination, making its role unique.

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 provides a clear pointer to use list_service_categories when the service slug is uncertain, which is helpful prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other siblings like get_worker_profile or browse_open_tasks. The context implies these alternatives, but explicit exclusions are missing, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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