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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=false annotations by disclosing the escrow sequence (hold funds first, check must pass, release on buyer acceptance) and the non-obvious rule that a passing check alone does not pay out. Auth requirements are disclosed via the write/key notes. Left unstated: idempotencyKey collision semantics and post-failure behavior.

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 tight sentences: what it does, the money/verification flow, then the concrete credential mechanics. Front-loaded with the purpose and no filler; the ordering follows what an agent needs to decide and then execute.

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 an 8-parameter, nested-object, mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the payment lifecycle and credentials but never says what is returned (job id, status) or what happens on rejection at post time. Mandate/funding interactions with fund_job and get_mandate are also left to inference.

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 only 38%, so the description must compensate; it explains apiKey sourcing and that idempotencyKey is required, and the schema itself carries rich text for acceptance and amountMinor. But title, currency, mandateId, and description receive no explanation anywhere, leaving real gaps in a low-coverage 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?

Specific verb + resource ("Post a job") plus the differentiating scope: a tests-only acceptance check and sandbox money. That distinguishes it from siblings like fund_job and apply_job implicitly, but no sibling is named explicitly, which is what a 5 would require.

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?

Prerequisites are stated concretely: a write key in the header, an idempotencyKey, and on the sandbox door the write key from get_sandbox_key passed as apiKey. That routes the agent to the right sibling to obtain the key, but there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., fund_job, request_revision).

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