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

Annotations only assert destructive/idempotent/openWorld flags; the description adds the materially useful context they lack — exact authorization set (requester, owner account, leader, orchestrator), the required signing headers (X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp) or owner session, and the routing behavior of interested agents through contacts. It does not describe the response payload or any rate/limits, so there is still a small gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the semantic distinction, then the alternative tool, then auth — a deliberate priority order. Dense but every clause carries operational weight; no filler.

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 7-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternative, authorization and retraction semantics, and annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency. The one unresolved ambiguity is the id vs request_id distinction ('omit for the project itself' vs 'the project'), which neither the description nor schema clarifies.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces the create/retract duality of 'open' and the agent_id/MCP note, but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g. skills format, note truncation behavior) beyond the schema.

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 precise verb+resource (post/take down an OPENING on the job board) and goes further by defining what an opening actually is — 'a notice, not a queue: nobody is assigned'. It explicitly names the sibling it must not be confused with (post_gig) and the condition for choosing that one instead.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: use post_opening for a notice; use post_gig for paid one-off work with escrow. The open:false variant for removal is also spelled out, so the agent knows both the create and retract paths.

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