list_gig_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the whole burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about pagination, result ordering, what an 'open' status means, or what the budget unit is. It is thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition and followed by the action pointer. Nothing is padded, though the brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient use of space.

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 annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. Missing filtering semantics and return shape leave real gaps that nothing else in the definition fills.

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?

Both parameters (search, minBudgetUsdg) have 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place meaning could be added — and it adds none. It does not explain that search is a free-text filter or that minBudgetUsdg is presumably USDG-denominated and numeric, leaving an agent to guess.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open gig posts') and clarifies scope with '(one-worker jobs)', which distinguishes it from quest-oriented siblings like list_quests. However it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as list_new_work or list_gig_posts' read counterparts.

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?

'Apply with apply_to_gig_post' gives a forward next-step pointer, which is useful but only covers what to do *after* browsing. There is no guidance on when to pick this over list_new_work, list_quests, or get_gig_post, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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