Search projects

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: budgets are denominated in Toman, results carry a `token` that unlocks the detail call, and bid counts are deliberately absent from the public data. That last caveat prevents an agent from promising data that does not exist, though filter/pagination quirks are left to the schema.

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 paragraphs with the search scope front-loaded, then use cases, currency, the token hand-off, and the bid-count limitation. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess, and nothing is padded.

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 nine-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus schema covers what is needed to call it and to chain into kl_project. The only real gap is guidance on combining filters or interpreting result volumes, which the schema only partly addresses.

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% and each parameter already carries a description, including the Toman unit and the per-page filtering caveat for low_competition. The description's 'keyword, skill, category and budget' phrasing and its Toman note largely restate what the schema documents, so the baseline of 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 specific verb and resource ('Search open freelance projects on Karlancer') plus the filter axes (keyword, skill, category, budget), and explicitly distinguishes itself from kl_project by saying the token is what you pass to that sibling for the full brief. An agent can route between the list tool and the detail tool without opening either schema.

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?

It states two concrete use cases ('find work to bid on' and 'see what employers ask for and pay') and prescribes the follow-up call to kl_project. It does not mention when to prefer kl_similar_projects, kl_market_rate, or kl_categories instead, so alternatives beyond the detail tool are left implicit.

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