Search freelancers

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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive call, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds only that results carry rating and skills information, and that returned ids feed kl_freelancer, while saying nothing about result volume, ranking behavior, or empty-result handling beyond what the schema covers.

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 with the capability stated first and the sibling hand-off second; no filler, and nothing an agent needs is buried. Every clause earns its place by either defining scope or directing follow-up.

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 six-parameter, all-optional search tool with rich schema descriptions and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, use case, and next-step routing. The only gap is that result-set characteristics (24 per page, 10,000 match cap) live solely in the schema, so an agent reading only the description would not know result volume.

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%, with every parameter documented in detail, including the 'best' vs 'newest' ordering and the Persian province format. The description names keyword, skill, and province at a high level, which simply mirrors the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Search Karlancer freelancers') plus the searchable dimensions (keyword, skill, province), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling kl_freelancer by naming that tool as the profile/reviews drill-down, making the boundary between the two clear.

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?

'Use this to find people to hire or to benchmark a skill's market' supplies concrete use cases, and the closing sentence routes the agent to kl_freelancer when it needs profile detail. It stops short of exclusions, such as when kl_top_freelancers or kl_market_rate would be the better pick, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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