List Open Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context (no escrow exists yet; the buyer creates escrow on award and payment is automatic on approval), but says nothing about the tool's own runtime behavior such as result ordering or pagination across the limit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does before moving to the bidding workflow. No filler, though the third sentence is arguably more workflow guidance than tool definition and could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, state semantics and the immediate next step in the workflow. An agent has enough to call it correctly, though the missing contrast with list_marketplace_jobs is the one remaining gap.

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 100% — limit, category and min_budget are each fully documented in the schema with defaults, ranges and enum values. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (browse jobs on the AgentTrust job board open for bidding) and clarifies the object's state (buyer requests with no escrow yet). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely named sibling list_marketplace_jobs, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains that these are bidding-stage jobs and names submit_bid() as the follow-up action, which hints at when to use it. But it never gives an explicit when-not condition or contrasts with alternatives such as list_marketplace_jobs or view_job.

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