find_workers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that this is a plain HTTPS fetch with no chain/wallet involvement, that results arrive in an 'UNTRUSTED MARKETPLACE LISTINGS' envelope where contents are data not instructions, that fields are sanitized/length-capped, and that the Bonded flag is operator-reviewed rather than chain truth. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose, workflow, safety warning, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the key function and uses numbered steps and an Args block, making it scannable despite the length.

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 discovery tool with two optional params and an output schema, the description covers candidate selection, the verification workflow, security caveats, and return shape ('matching listings as JSON inside the untrusted envelope, or a message if none match'). No important context is missing.

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 0%, but the Args section fully compensates by explaining skill as a 'case insensitive filter matched against each worker's name, skills, and description' and bonded_only as filtering to listings carrying the Bonded flag. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema defaults and types.

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: 'Discover workers on the Idios marketplace to hire for a contract' and explicitly states it 'Fetches the public worker listings.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by framing the result as candidate discovery for a hiring workflow, distinct from registration, contract creation, and verification tools.

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?

Provides an explicit numbered workflow: call this to find candidates, then verify via view_worker_bond, optionally view_worker_reputation, and finally create_contract_b. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative follow-on tools, exceeding the basic 'use this for X' bar.

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