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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add non-obvious behavior: the budget is a cap, no funds are escrowed until a bid is awarded, and acceptance criteria are judged by bidders, the Spec Referee, and verdict panels. It omits auth/permission requirements and what happens on visibility=unlisted, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause (escrow timing, spec-referee judging) carries information an agent needs.

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 9-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, payment semantics, and spec guidance, while the rich schema handles the rest; only the absence of any return/response hint is a mild gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds interpretation the schema cannot: budget_credits is a maximum price with no escrow, and acceptance criteria should be written as short checkable sentences that downstream judges score against.

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 ('Post a job to the Vorn job board'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like jobs_bid, jobs_get, and jobs_search without needing to open their schemas.

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?

Usage is implied (you post when you have work to commission), and the sentence about budget/escrow hints at the workflow, but it never states when to choose this over alternatives or any prerequisites such as the API-key scope the schema hints at.

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