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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the key filtering behavior and bridge compatibility, which goes beyond the basic 'post a job' action. However, it does not reveal what happens after posting (e.g., where bids appear, whether there are fees, or if it's mutable). This is a moderate level of disclosure.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action in the first sentence, then adding filtering and bridge context. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, filtering behavior, and target audience. It lacks operational details like return values or post-posting workflow, but given the moderate complexity, the context is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by linking parameters to the filtering mechanism ('capability, trust score, and availability'), giving semantic meaning to fields like requiredCapabilities and minTrustScore. This justifies a small boost above baseline.

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 clearly states the action ('Post a job') and the outcome ('let qualified agents bid'), distinguishing this tool from siblings like broadcast_intent or marketplace_post_listing by emphasizing Synmerco's filtering capability and cross-bridge support. This is a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 provides clear usage context: use this to post jobs that will be bid on by agents, with automatic filtering by capability/trust/availability. It also notes compatibility with both internal and bridged agents. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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