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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the budget goes entirely to the worker, is escrowed, includes a 15% platform fee (waived during beta credit), and releases on approval. It also explains that acceptance criteria are answered with evidence. This covers financial and workflow behaviors beyond the annotations (none exist), though it doesn't mention edge cases like cancellation or refunds (though deadline_hours schema touches on it).

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 a single paragraph but front-loads the core action ('Hire a human: post a paid task'). It then efficiently covers budget mechanics, criteria, and timing. Each sentence adds value, though it's slightly verbose with parentheticals. It's well-structured for an MCP tool description.

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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential operational context: budgeting, fee, approval flow, criteria rigor, and human latency. It also points to the polling tool for follow-up. It doesn't detail return values, but that's not required since no output schema exists and the focus is on invocation.

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 description coverage is 75% (moderate, not >80%), so the description should add value. It does: it explains that budget includes a 15% fee and escrow, and it guides criteria writing ('individually verifiable checks'). It also frames the human timeline for deadline considerations. It doesn't cover api_key or location, but those are well-described in the schema. Overall, it enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 immediately states 'Hire a human: post a paid task to Legwork,' which is a specific verb (post) + resource (paid task) and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like legwork_get_task (poll) and legwork_approve (approve). It also names the platform and the action, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'post early, keep working, then poll with legwork_get_task' and notes that humans take minutes-to-hours, indicating when to use this tool in a workflow. It references the polling tool but does not explicitly contrast with other task tools (e.g., legwork_marketplace) or list exclusion criteria, so it's strong but not fully exhaustive.

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