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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden: it explains authorization restrictions, prerequisite state, irreversible consequences, payment and bond effects, and that the result is an unsigned request that sends nothing. This is unusually complete.

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 front-loaded with the action and scope, then adds only essential constraints and effects. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with fully documented parameters, this description supplies the missing behavioral and return-value context. It explains what is prepared, what is not sent, and what happens upon approval.

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 the schema already documents both required parameters clearly. The description adds contextual constraints such as poster-only access but does not add further semantics for the job or wallet parameters 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: prepare an unsigned approval for a delivered job report, with the resulting payment and bond return. It also clearly distinguishes this from related actions like delivering, accepting, or reviewing a report.

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 explicit prerequisites: only the job's poster may call it, only when the job is Delivered, and the delivered text should be read first with job_delivered. It also warns that approving is final, which is a key usage constraint.

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