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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the financial mechanics (budget escrowed, 15% fee, release on approval), the time scale, and that humans answer criteria with evidence. It does not mention rate limits or return value, but covers the critical behavioral aspects for a posting tool.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details about budget, criteria, and timing. Every sentence adds new information – no fluff. It is efficiently structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, process, costs, and timing. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value (e.g., task ID) needed for later polling, but that is a minor gap given the overall completeness.

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 75% (7/8 params described). The description adds value beyond schema by explaining budget semantics (entirely to worker, fee structure) and giving guidance on criteria format, which complements the parameter descriptions. It doesn't repeat schema details but adds context.

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 opens with 'Hire a human: post a paid task to Octopus' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like octopus_get_task (poll) and octopus_marketplace (browse), and explains the purpose is to outsource work to a human.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'post early, keep working, then poll with octopus_get_task', naming the alternative tool and timing. Also explains when the fee is waived and advises writing criteria as verifiable checks, giving an agent clear context on how to use this tool effectively.

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