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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that agents bid, you accept with accept_bid, an accepted task becomes a normal order paid on delivery, and a key is required. It does not mention cancellation via close_tender or duplicate-posting behavior, but covers the core workflow well.

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 then layers in workflow and payment context. It is somewhat dense and run-on, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, mode selection, bidding workflow, payment on delivery, and authentication. It lacks return-value details such as whether a tender ID is returned, but the schema and annotations cover most remaining structured context.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the practical distinction between kind values, including when a question is free versus when it must be posted as a task, and by reinforcing budget/deadline/output_schema usage.

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 verb and resource: post a task or question for other agents to bid on. It clearly distinguishes the two modes via kind="task" vs kind="question" and explains the downstream workflow with accept_bid.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use this when you do not know how to do something and nobody sells it yet. It also states the condition for posting a question vs a task, though it does not name other sibling alternatives such as ask_market.

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