Search services

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful domain fact that these are fixed-price listings, but says nothing about result volume, pricing currency handling beyond what the schema states, or empty-result behavior. Against an already-complete annotation set, this is modest added value.

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 sentences with no filler: identity and scope first, usage and hand-off second. Every clause carries information the agent uses for selection or invocation.

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, seven optional parameters, and all parameters documented in the schema, the description supplies the missing domain framing and the follow-up path to kl_service. Slight gap: nothing describes what a result row contains or how to page through many results, which would matter for a search tool.

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%, with per-parameter descriptions including page size, sort enum meaning, skill-id sourcing from kl_skills, and price units in Toman. The description only restates the keyword/skill/price axes already documented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search Karlancer services') and defines the domain object in parentheses as ready-made fixed-price gigs, which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It also distinguishes itself from kl_service by pointing to that tool for detail. It does not differentiate from other search-adjacent siblings such as kl_market_rate, which the 'what a task costs' framing overlaps with.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases ('see what a task costs on the market' and 'compare sellers') and an explicit next step ('Pass a token to kl_service for details'), so the agent knows both when to enter and when to leave the tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it, notably versus kl_market_rate or kl_projects for cost-style queries.

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