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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that jobs are free, require admin approval before going live, and require employer authentication—key behavioral traits. However, it omits other behaviors like the option to save as a draft (though visible in schema) and any error/validation details. It provides essential context but not exhaustive transparency, hence a 3.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately relays crucial behavioral notes (free, admin approval, auth). There is zero redundancy or filler, making it concise and effective. It delivers necessary information without wasting words.

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?

The description covers the core context needed for an agent to call the tool correctly: the purpose, the cost implication, the approval process, and authentication. Since the schema provides comprehensive parameter details, the description complements rather than duplicates that info. It could mention return behavior or draft handling, but these are covered in schema or are not essential. Overall, it is adequately complete for a creation tool with rich schema metadata.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so all 14 parameters are already documented in detail. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given the high coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 the action ('Post a new job on Himalayas') and provides context about free posting and admin approval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like post_job_public or update_company_job, which would elevate it to a 5. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous and specific enough for an agent to select 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?

The description gives context about when to use the tool (to post a new job) and includes prerequisites like employer authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., post_job_public). This implies usage rather than providing explicit routing guidance, so a 3 is appropriate.

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