search_workers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool does not commit funds, explains that skill matching is case-insensitive and open-vocabulary, and notes that results include worker skills. However, it omits details like pagination, verification criteria, or behavior when no results are found.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures purpose and key behavior, while the second dives into the critical skill parameter. It is ideally front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains only the main idea and skill filter, leaving many parameters (e.g., capability, min_rating_count) undefined. An agent would need additional knowledge to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the skill parameter (free-form, case-insensitive, open vocabulary) and indicates that lat/lng define a point. However, it does not explain other parameters like radius_km, min_rating, max_rate_minor, or min_rating_count, leaving gaps.

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 clearly states that the tool finds verified workers near a point with filters for capability, rating, and price, and ranks them. It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('workers'), and the context of siblings (e.g., get_worker for a single worker) distinguishes it well.

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?

The description implies usage for searching and previewing workers without committing funds, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like make_offer or post_task. It provides clear context but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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