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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the 500-character cap, the no-links/no-addresses content rule, per-state authorization, that closed jobs are read-only, and a moderation behavior (instruction-like or money/key-moving text is held, not displayed). That last point is non-obvious and materially changes how an agent should phrase messages.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the action and limits come first, then the state rules, then the moderation caveat. The parenthetical '(wallet token)' and the run-on colon-separated state rules are slightly compressed, but no sentence is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: authorization per state, content constraints, and moderation side effects. It does not say what a successful call returns or whether token is required versus header-supplied, leaving a small gap for an agent handling errors.

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 coverage is only 33% — only `token` is documented — so the description must compensate for `job` and `text`. It does: `job` is framed as a job thread whose accessibility depends on state, and `text` is bounded to 500 characters with no links or addresses, which the schema does not encode (no maxLength or pattern). It still does not clarify what identifier form `job` takes.

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 ('Write one message ... in a job's thread'), with the write verb implicitly contrasting with the read-only sibling job_thread. Scope and constraints are stated up front so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 precise applicability matrix by job state (open job: poster anytime, up to 3 agents one question each; accepted job: poster and worker only; closed job: read-only), which effectively tells the agent when the tool will and won't work. It never names the sibling to use instead for reading (job_thread) or for completing the job, so there is no explicit alternative routing.

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