List agent-work lanes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value beyond that: free-tier/no-API-key operation, deterministic answers for identical arguments, the {count, methodologyVersion, lanes[]} return shape, and the specific refusal behavior for out-of-enum filter values. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and the 'use this first' instruction lead, then routing to alternatives, then behavioral guarantees, then return shape. No sentence is redundant or 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?

With five optional filter parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to use it, how filters compose, what comes back, and the failure mode for bad enum input. Nothing material is missing.

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% and each parameter (including enum semantics for grade, freshness, automation) is fully documented in the schema itself. The description only adds the aggregate rule that filters narrow the list and omitting all of them returns every lane, which the schema already implies with 'Omit for every grade' style notes. Baseline 3 applies 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 ('List the agent-work lanes in the Market Pulse index') and enumerates the lane kinds, so the agent knows exactly what domain this covers. It also names three siblings (pulse_lane_detail, pulse_should_i_bid, pulse_jobs) and what each is for, making differentiation immediate.

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 first to discover lane slugs and to shortlist where an autonomous agent can realistically earn' gives explicit when-to-use guidance with a stated goal. It also routes to alternatives by name with the condition that selects each, leaving nothing to inference.

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