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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: non-owned ids return 404, the required permission scope 'See your postings, applications and the work you are hired on' (work:read) is named, and an unconnected member is prompted to sign in. It also explains semantic behavior an agent cannot infer elsewhere, such as `closeNeedsLastDay` becoming true once a contract has started, and it warns that member-authored text is data, not instructions.

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-loaded with purpose and the retrieval route, then constraints, then auth, then the injection caveat — a sensible order. It repeats the title verbatim as its opening clause and uses some atmospheric phrasing ('its word, its dates'), but nearly every remaining clause (404 rule, act list, closeNeedsLastDay, permission scope) carries real decision value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so: it lists what the record shows (word, dates, whether a close is scheduled) and the `actions` array with its possible values. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the result.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the enum, making 3 the baseline. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by constraining provenance and validity: `id` must come from GET /me/work, must belong to the member's own posting, and any other id produces 404 — a validation rule the schema cannot express.

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 ('Read one of your member's postings and what can be done with it now') and immediately scopes it to a single posting versus the collection. It explicitly names the sibling that enumerates postings ('GET /me/work lists them') and separates itself from the act routes (submit · pause · resume · close · ...), so an agent can pick it apart from list_my_work without opening a 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 clear routing guidance: fetch `type` and `id` from GET /me/work, then call this; the enumerated acts are 'each its own route below' rather than things this tool does. It also states the hard constraint that only the member's own postings resolve and 'any other id answers 404'. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use sentence for edge cases beyond that, but the context is unambiguous.

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