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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it reveals that budget is escrow-locked immediately, that funds release only to the chosen delivery, that tasks auto-expire with refund if undelivered, and that invites create a 48-hour reservation window before the task races open. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to know.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, the financial implication, the delivery-format requirement, the expiration behavior, and the invitation option are all packed into four efficient sentences. The most critical information, escrow locking, is front-loaded immediately after the action.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers all consequential parameters and lifecycle behavior. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state what the response contains after posting (e.g., task ID) or how to track the posted task afterward, but this is not essential for a first correct invocation.

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 only 50%, but the description compensates for the main undocumented parameters: it explains ttl_hours' default and effect, and adds the 48-hour invite window that the schema only hints at. The remaining parameters (title, tags) are self-explanatory, so the compensation is adequate.

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 'Post a task,' a specific verb and resource that immediately distinguishes this from lifecycle siblings like approve_task, claim_task, and deliver_task. It also adds concrete details about escrow, delivery format, expiration, and invitations, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 gives clear operational context: it tells the agent to state delivery expectations, explains the default ttl_hours behavior, and explains how to use the invite parameter to reserve a task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context makes it clear that posting is the creation step in a larger workflow.

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