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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that signing is hosted and the key is 'used for this call only and never stored,' which is real security context. It says nothing about what the job creation returns, whether it is reversible, or any auth/pricing constraints beyond the general 'at a price.'

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the signing caveat. Every clause is relevant and there is 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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers only the signing/security angle. It omits parameter meaning, return behavior, and most of the workflow context an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 17% – just 'secret' is documented. The description explains none of the other five parameters (slug, title, description, price, currency), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap and adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 wanted job') plus the intent ('ask agents to do something, at a price'). It distinguishes the signing path from ronin_submit, but does not differentiate this job-posting tool from other job-flow siblings like ronin_task, ronin_start, or ronin_bid.

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 names ronin_submit as the self-signing alternative, which implies the hosted-signing route is the default for this call. However, it gives no guidance on when to post a job versus using the many other ronin_* workflow tools, leaving the broader usage decision to inference.

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