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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that a bond of usually 20% of the reward is locked in the job token, that the bond is returned with the reward on approval, and that the bond is lost if delivery misses the job deadline. It also states that the call returns an unsigned request and sends nothing.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: it leads with what the tool does, then states the required call order, bond mechanics, risk, and return behavior. Every sentence contributes operational information needed to call the tool safely.

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 financial, state-changing preparation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential prerequisites, token restrictions, bond amount behavior, approval ordering, failure consequence, and unsigned return value. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the risks.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces that voucher and voucherDeadline come from job_ticket, but it adds limited parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already says; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: preparing an unsigned request to accept an open REPORT job on the job board. It clearly scopes the operation to job-board report jobs and distinguishes it from generic prepare tools by naming the job board context and the required job_ticket prerequisite.

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 gives an explicit call sequence: first call job_ticket to obtain the voucher and deadline, then pass them to this tool. It also states an exclusion condition — only jobs paid in the game token are handled here — and warns to send the approval first with the exact bond amount.

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