List Open Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context: these are buyer requests with no escrow yet, and the listing shows budget_xrp, bid_count, category, and expiration. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured with the purpose front-loaded, followed by context, a workflow, and a return summary. It is readable and scannable. Some workflow steps describe later tools like submit_bid() and award_job(), which adds context but is slightly beyond what is strictly needed for calling list_open_jobs.

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 simple read-only listing function, the schema covers all optional parameters, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description lists the returned job fields. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from closely related sibling list tools, but an agent can still determine correctly how and when to use this 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?

All three parameters (limit, category, min_budget) are fully documented in the input schema with defaults, constraints, and descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Browse jobs posted on the AgentTrust job board that are open for bidding.' It clearly identifies this as a listing operation for buyer-request jobs with no escrow yet, which helps distinguish it from other list-type tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like list_marketplace_jobs.

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 workflow section explicitly places this tool as the first step: 'list_open_jobs() — find a suitable job.' This gives clear contextual guidance for when to call it and what follow-up actions are expected. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to list_marketplace_jobs/view_job.

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