list_quests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The word 'Open' usefully constrains the result set and the parenthetical explains the payment model, implying a safe read operation. However, it says nothing about pagination, sort order, result limits, or whether closed/full quests are excluded beyond the 'Open' qualifier.

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 tight sentences with the concept definition front-loaded and the filter surface stated second. Nothing is padded or restated from the tool name.

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 4-parameter, no-required-args listing tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core concept and three of four filters, but leaves freeSlotsOnly unexplained and says nothing about result volume, ordering, or default behavior, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds the semantic framing 'Filter by text, category or minimum reward' (matching search, category, minRewardUsdg) but omits freeSlotsOnly entirely, adding little beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Open quests') and immediately defines what a quest is ('multi-slot tasks paid per completed slot'), which is genuinely useful domain context. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_quest, though it does not explicitly name it.

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?

Usage is implied by the listing verb and the enumerated filters ('Filter by text, category or minimum reward'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion criteria, and no routing to siblings like get_quest, list_gig_posts, or list_new_work.

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