Search freelancers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact payload fields returned, currency semantics for hourly_rate, and a precise cursor-termination contract. Missing are result-cap/pagination limits beyond the cursor rule and any rate-limit or auth expectations.

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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with the resource and filters, followed by return-shape and pagination guidance. The return-field enumeration is a long run-on list that could be trimmed, but every element carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so in detail (fields, currency, About snippet), plus pagination and the hand-off to get_freelancer. It stops short of describing ordering defaults or result-total behavior, leaving mild gaps for a 7-parameter search tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by documenting the cross-parameter contract ('pass next_cursor back as cursor with the same limit') and clarifying that hourly_rate is evaluated in the account's currency. The rest (sort, min_rating, top_certified) is not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 states the resource (freelancers), the primary filter axes (skill or keyword, rate, rating, reviews, projects), and maps itself to a known external search ('same search as Hire freelancers on PeoplePerHour'). The verb is only implied by the name/title rather than written in the description, but the scope is unambiguous enough to separate it from search_projects and search_offers.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the sibling for deeper detail ('get_freelancer returns the full profile') and gives a concrete pagination procedure ('Pass next_cursor back as cursor with the same limit; it is null on the last page'). It does not state when to prefer this over search_projects/search_offers or any preconditions, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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