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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the call produces an order plus an external checkout link via Mayar in IDR, that the free pilot is gated by manual review, and the conditional requirement between apply_url and host_apply_form. Missing are permission requirements, what happens on payment abandonment, and whether reposting the same job creates duplicates.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the actor and the operation before the conditional rule. Every sentence contributes a distinct fact: purpose, return value/payment context, default tier, and the conditional requirement.

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 14-parameter creation tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is produced (checkout link) and the one cross-field constraint that could trip an agent. It is slightly thin on post-call behavior — pricing, order status, or what to do with the returned link — which is the only real 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 description coverage is 100%, so all 14 parameters (including product_key enum-like values and char limits) are already documented. The description restates the apply_url/host_apply_form conditional that the schema also states and reaffirms the default tier, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a job-post order') and adds the concrete outcome ('get back a checkout link'), so the agent knows this is the employer-side posting flow rather than the candidate-side apply_to_job or draft_application. It signals audience with 'Employer tool' but never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 useful context about which product/tier applies by default (Standard) and what happens with the free pilot (manual review to handle). It does not say when to prefer this over 'advertise' or 'hire', nor any prerequisites such as being authenticated as an employer.

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