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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well on several axes: it discloses cost (1 credit), an auth prerequisite (employer key, ABN-verified), and a side effect (Fair Work/moderation warnings returned). It stops short of describing reversibility, posting visibility, or failure behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Two dense sentences with the action first, prerequisites second, and return/parameter behavior last — no filler. Slightly telegraphic, but every clause earns its place.

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 9-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers preconditions, cost, returned warnings, and one parameter default, but leaves the majority of input parameters unaddressed. Adequate but noticeably incomplete for this complexity.

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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains id_verified_only's semantics (default Basic verified or higher) and says nothing about title, location, work_type, pay_min/pay_max/pay_unit, skills, or description, leaving most parameters undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Post a job') and adds the employer-key/ABN/credit preconditions, so the action and its context are unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but no sibling competes for the same write action (search_jobs, apply are clearly different), so this is a minor gap.

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 implies the conditions for use (needs an employer key, ABN verification, 1 credit) but never states when to choose this tool over any alternative or what the exclusions are. The eligible-verification-tier note for id_verified_only gives useful context but is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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