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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds substantive trust context that annotations cannot convey - that every listed job's pay is funded on chain before appearing. It also documents the derived per-row fields (jobType, claimable) that govern subsequent 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 dense sentences with the listing scope front-loaded and the jobType-to-tool mapping at the end where it is most actionable. The money-funding sentence is essential rather than filler, though the phrasing is slightly compressed ('hard money', 'AutoJob loop').

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains what a row contains and what claimable means, which is the main return-value risk. Gaps remain around pagination via limit and the non-open status filters, but the core listing contract is covered.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does add the undocumented default for status ('default: open'), but never explains what limit does or bounds, and the enum values (claimed, in_review, complete, all) are left uninterpreted.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (list paid jobs on Moonsox Desk) plus a precise default scope (status=open, including AutoJob loop jobs with an open funded slot). It also disambiguates row types against sibling tools, mapping auto_loop to desk_loop_redeem and one_shot to desk_claim_job, which is exactly the distinction an agent needs.

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?

It clearly frames the default listing context and tells the agent what each row implies as a next step (which sibling tool to use per jobType). It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. when to use this versus desk_get_job for a single job or desk_claim_job directly.

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