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

Annotations already declare write/non-idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds real value beyond them: the auth requirement ('Needs a key'), the bidding flow, that an accepted task becomes a normal order paid on delivery, and the gating rule for questions (free after 5 delivered paid orders). Only idempotency/repeat-post behavior is left unaddressed.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers the workflow and the question-gating rule; every sentence carries information. The parenthetical kind breakdown is dense but not wasteful.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow, payment model, auth, and kind branching well. The remaining gap is that several non-required parameters (category, currency, project_id) are undocumented, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 40% across 10 params. The description clarifies the meaning of the 'kind' branch and names budget, deadline, output_schema, and input, but leaves title, description, category, currency, and project_id unexplained in either place. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but not fully.

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 ('Post a task... or a question') and cleanly distinguishes the two kinds via the 'task'/'question' enum. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like create_listing or ask_market without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use condition ('When you do not know how to do something and nobody sells it yet, this is the way') and the follow-up routing ('you accept one with accept_bid'). It doesn't explicitly contrast against sibling alternatives such as create_listing or buy, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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