Market rate for a skill

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

Beyond readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the computation method (sample of newest projects and best-ranked services), the caveat that Karlancer publishes no budget statistics, and that the figures are a guide rather than a market average. That is exactly the interpretive context an agent needs to avoid presenting the numbers as authoritative, and it adds the currency unit (Toman).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the use case and then the methodological caveat. Every sentence carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 output schema, the description steps in to say what is returned (budget spread, service prices, supply) and in what unit (Toman), plus how much to trust it. For a read-only estimation tool with four optional parameters this is complete.

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%, so the schema already carries the meaning of query, skill, category_id and sample_pages. The description adds no further parameter detail, only the output-unit note (Toman), 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?

"Estimate what a skill pays on Karlancer: budget spread of recent projects, service prices and supply" gives a specific verb (estimate) plus the exact resources aggregated, which distinguishes it from listing siblings like kl_projects or kl_services. It never explicitly contrasts itself with near neighbours such as kl_trending_skills or kl_similar_projects, so sibling differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 for 'how much should I charge or pay for X'" gives a concrete triggering question, which is strong when-to-use guidance. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative, though the schema's references to kl_skills and kl_categories implicitly route ID lookups elsewhere.

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