ReverseCentaur

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what information is returned (nine specific categories with details like minimum budgets, worker availability, completion times) and the tool's role in workflow sequencing (use before posting tasks).

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 perfectly structured: first sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance, third details return values. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with good annotations, the description provides complete context: clear purpose, explicit usage guidance, detailed output information (including specific category names), and workflow positioning. No output schema exists, so the description's return value details are particularly valuable.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, providing semantic context about the output data (nine categories with specific names and associated metrics).

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to list available task categories, fair trade pay minimums, worker availability, and current platform status. It uses specific verbs ('list', 'discover') and clearly distinguishes this read-only informational tool from its sibling tools which perform actions like posting, canceling, or checking tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this before posting a task to discover which categories exist, what the minimum budget is for each, how many workers are currently available, and typical completion times.' This clearly positions it as a prerequisite discovery tool versus its sibling action-oriented tools.

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