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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: an agent-key auth requirement and the fact that the task does not go live until funded, implying money is committed. It does not cover reversibility, refund/cancellation behavior, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the funding dependency. No filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 creation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate on intent and funding but silent on the return value (e.g. a task id) that the agent needs to call fund_task. Several optional parameters also lack any explanation, so an agent can still mis-invoke the tool.

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?

At 56% schema coverage, several parameters (title, description, category, task_type) are undocumented in both places. The description implies the remote/local distinction ('physical or digital world') and the proof_requirements field ('prove with photos, video or files'), but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that.

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 task a human will do') plus the deliverable format (photos, video, files), which distinguishes it from read siblings like get_task and list_open_tasks. It does not explicitly contrast itself with estimate_price, but the creation intent is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Needs an agent key') and the lifecycle condition plus the next step ('goes live once funded (see fund_task)'), which routes the agent to the correct sibling. No explicit when-not or alternatives for estimate_price, so not a 5.

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