List open projects

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

The description discloses non-obvious API behavior beyond the annotations—it reveals that only_my_skills and only_for_plus are documented but ignored by the server, and that skill_ids/employer_id are the enforced filters. This adds significant behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, followed by a critical API quirk. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the non-obvious behavioral details and pagination/ordering. With no output schema, a brief note on the response shape could improve it, but the format parameter in the schema already covers the summary/raw distinction.

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, but the description adds meaning by warning that only_my_skills and only_for_plus are no-ops, and that skill_ids overrides only_my_skills. This helps the agent avoid relying on misleading parameters.

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 action and resource: listing open projects from the Freelancehunt feed, newest first, 10 per page. It is clear and specific but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like find_projects or list_my_projects, so a strong 4 rather than 5.

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 description gives clear usage context: it lists open feed projects and advises passing explicit skill_ids to narrow the feed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for the agent to decide.

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