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

The description discloses key behaviors: it builds unsigned templates (not submitting), and 'when needed' indicates conditional inclusion of approval/deposit. It explicitly states the user's signer submits them and Averray never relays signed transactions, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. The conditional logic ('when needed') is mentioned but not expanded, but this is adequate.

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?

Two dense sentences cover purpose, components, conditionality, and signing responsibility with no filler. The main action ('Build wallet-bound unsigned direct-Hub templates') is front-loaded, and every clause adds necessary detail. Highly efficient writing.

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 transaction builder with conditional components, the description covers the essential workflow and prerequisites (existing draft) and the signing model. It omits details like what the output format is (though no output schema exists) and more precise conditions for 'when needed', but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool with a draftId. The overall picture is complete enough for correct usage.

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 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate for documenting the draftId parameter. It says 'for an existing deterministic draft', implying draftId is the identifier of that draft, but doesn't map it explicitly. For a single simple parameter, this implicit reference is somewhat helpful but not fully explicit, so it falls short of complete clarity.

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 tool builds unsigned, wallet-bound transaction templates for a job posting draft, listing the specific components (token approval, AgentAccountCore deposit, escrow create). It distinguishes itself from sibling transaction builders by the 'escrow create' for job posting, making its purpose concrete and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: it operates on an 'existing deterministic draft', implying the agent must first have a draft (e.g., from draftJob). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity to job posting and the draft prerequisite make the usage clear enough. Not naming sibling tools is a minor gap.

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