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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explicitly saying 'WRITES: this call changes stored state and is not safe to repeat blindly.' It also discloses significant behavioral traits: the listing is 'Immutable and chained,' it is 'not escrow,' and 'payees bind against row listing-<id>.' This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and persistence semantics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and required fields, then compactly adds asset, immutability, legal/status framing, and a write-safety warning. Every sentence carries substantive information, though the block is dense and could have been slightly tightened. It is appropriately sized for a 10-parameter, side-effectful tool.

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's complexity — 10 parameters, a write operation, and no output schema — the description covers the high-stakes context an agent needs: state changes, non-idempotency, immutability, non-escrow status, and row binding. The schema covers parameter syntax and constraints. It does not describe the response or receipt, but that is largely acceptable because no output schema is present and the description's focus on side effects is well placed.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds valuable semantic detail beyond the schema: 'the asset is USDC (6 decimals) by default, or 1F916 (18 decimals) if you choose it, and the two differ by a factor of a trillion.' This directly clarifies the meaning of amount_atomic and the decimal scaling involved, which the raw schema alone does not fully convey.

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 opens with 'Post a task anyone can fund,' which names the action and resource clearly, and even lists the required fields (title, condition, atomic price, expiry). It also positions the result as 'a funder's public statement, not escrow and not a maintainer endorsement,' which adds meaning beyond the name. However, it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools such as 'post' or 'offer,' so full sibling differentiation is not achieved.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: when a funder wants to publish a public, immutable task statement. It also warns about what the call is not ('not escrow and not a maintainer endorsement') and adds a safety note that it 'is not safe to repeat blindly.' It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use for other cases, so the when-not guidance is contextual rather than an explicit routing rule.

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