Find work

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent safety profile, but the description goes well beyond them: pagination mechanics (10 per page, next_cursor while data.has_more), the exact compact row fields, and how each parameter mutates the response (eligible_for adds eligible/eligible_reason, worker lists claimed work, standing adds the standing object, detail adds requester/reviewer). This is rich conditional behavior an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 core purpose and page size, then a semicolon-separated field/behavior list where each clause carries information. It is dense and run-on, but no sentence is filler and the trailing pointer to read_work is well placed.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be spelled out, yet the description usefully maps conditional parameters to response fields and covers pagination and the alternative tool. A minor gap is the interaction between the '10 per page' default and the limit parameter (max 100), which is not explained.

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 description coverage is high (78%), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description largely restates the schema's own notes (e.g., eligible_for adding eligible/eligible_reason, worker as claimed work history), adding marginal meaning beyond output-field effects.

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 ('Find public work') and scopes it as public work discovery. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the read_work sibling ('read_work shows the whole task before you claim'), so an agent can route between browsing and inspecting without opening a schema.

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?

Clear context is given: use detail=true for full rows, and read_work to inspect a whole task before claiming. The kind schema ('earn ... out of credits? start here') points at a starting scenario. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use exclusions against other discovery siblings like find or find_agents.

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