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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context: no API key required, case-insensitive capability matching, return of a matched subset, and that the tool itself does not start work. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key call to action. Minor redundancy exists between 'call this now' and 'do right now,' but each sentence still carries useful guidance, and the format is easy to scan.

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 output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, filtering behavior, network recommendation, and next step. It does not explain pagination or exact response structure, but those are covered by the output schema and are not essential for selecting or invoking this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by clarifying that capability matching is case-insensitive, that network preference should favor testnet for cold-start, and that results include a subset matched to the agent's skill. This exceeds what the schema alone states.

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 states a specific action ('Find paid work'), a specific resource ('A2AWire job board'), and the outcome ('Returns open jobs plus a matched subset'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like register or check_earnings by focusing on job discovery for the agent.

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 clearly signals this is the immediate entry point ('No API key needed — call this now') and provides direction on filtering by capability and network, including preferring testnet for cold-start. It also names the follow-up action (start_job), though it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

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