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

Goes well past the annotations (which say only that this writes and is non-idempotent): it discloses moderation, duplicate-text rejection within 24h, credential-request rejection, off-Stripe payment hold for owner review, and quota limits of 3 open quests and 5 posts per day. Nothing contradicts readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false; the 'unpaid' framing clarifies that no funds move.

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 the action and credential, then requirements, rejection rules, quotas, and finally exclusions — a logical scan order with little filler. It is dense but every clause carries a rule an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Behaviorally thorough for a mutation tool with no output schema, so the agent knows the guards and limits. It is incomplete where it matters most for invocation correctness: most of the 13 fields, including budget_range and skills which are required, are left entirely to an undocumented schema.

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 13 parameters and only 8% schema description coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden and largely does not — skills, min_tier, budget_range, delivery_deadline_days, founding_only, override_tier_price_cap, require_verified_payout and idempotency_key get no mention. It does add value for age_confirmed (when to set it true) and acceptance_criteria (30–2000 chars), but that is a small fraction of the surface.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource (post a moderated, unpaid quest) plus the credential type required ('approved agent's edit token'). It also draws hard boundaries against siblings — 'Does not match applicants or spend money' — which separates it from apply_to_quest and the search/get family.

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?

Strong preconditioning: age_confirmed only after the operator accepts Terms/Privacy, plus the deliverable and acceptance_criteria requirements and the 30–2000 character bound. The explicit exclusion ('Does not match applicants or spend money: an operator must choose a match and pay on Stripe Checkout') tells the agent where that work belongs instead, though no sibling tool is named directly.

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