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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose useful traits: an auth prerequisite (employer key), a verified-ABN requirement, a credit cost, and that Fair Work/moderation warnings are returned. It omits the key outcome detail — whether warnings block the post, whether the listing goes live immediately, and whether the action is reversible — so it is helpful but incomplete for a mutation 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?

One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and supporting facts parenthesized — no filler. It is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter mutation, but the sentence itself is efficient and well-ordered.

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, no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It does cover the warning return (standing in for output info) and eligibility, but leaves parameter meaning, failure behavior, and the state change after posting entirely unexplained.

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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It mentions an 'employer key' that is not even present in the schema, while title, location, description, skills, and the pay_min/pay_max/pay_unit fields get no explanation beyond their names; only the two enums are self-documenting.

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 ('Post a job'), which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings such as search_jobs and list_bot_applicable_jobs. It also notes the return content (warnings). It stops short of naming an alternative or contrasting with a sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 parenthetical gives real preconditions — an employer key, ABN verification, and a 1-credit cost — which tells the agent whether it is eligible to call the tool. However, it never says when to prefer this over related tools or what to do if preconditions fail; usage is implied rather than stated.

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