taskmarket_find_delegatable_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether results are ranked, whether the search is case-sensitive, pagination behavior, or what the returned task objects contain. The only disclosed behavior is the intent of the search.

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?

One efficient sentence plus a usage clause, front-loading the search action. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a multi-mode search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 25% parameter coverage, the description is thin. An agent cannot know how mode affects results, what limit does, or what a match looks like, so it is not complete enough to call confidently.

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 only 25%: query is documented in the schema, but mode, limit, and maxRewardUsdc have no descriptions. The description mentions 'free-text query and optional max reward' partially covering two params, but says nothing about the mode enum's role (bounty/claim/pitch/benchmark/auction) or limit semantics, leaving the description unable to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (search) and resource (open tasks) with the match dimensions (free-text query, max reward). However, it does not distinguish itself from taskmarket_list_open_tasks, which by name seems to also enumerate open tasks, leaving ambiguity about overlap.

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 a clear when-to-use: check for existing matching work before spending inference. This is a genuine pre-condition for the tool. It does not, however, name a when-not-to-use or an explicit alternative (e.g., use list_open_tasks to browse everything).

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