taskmarket_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses no-auth/no-payment access, confirms 'Never spends anything' (safety), and previews the returned fields. It doesn't cover pagination, result ordering, or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 purpose and access constraints in efficient sentences. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is somewhat tangential to this tool's function, a minor waste, but the core is tight.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description compensates by enumerating return fields and access requirements for a 7-parameter search tool. It stops short of documenting filter interplay (mode vs status vs phase) or result limits, leaving small gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents mode, tags, phase, status, rewardMin/Max, and limit. The description only alludes to reward/status as returned fields and adds no filtering syntax or interaction guidance beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search open tasks on the TaskMarket agent work marketplace') plus the chain/asset context (Base, USDC escrow). 'Returns tasks with ID, reward, status, submission count, deadline' makes clear this is a list/search returning many tasks, distinguishing it from taskmarket_get (single task) and taskmarket_stats without needing to name them.

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 clear context: public and anonymous, no wallet or payment needed, and the intent 'so you can pick work to delegate.' It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like taskmarket_get or taskmarket_submissions or state exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous.

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