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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the call is unsigned, permissionless, pays the worker, and depends on a 72-hour silence condition. It does not describe the prepared output, failure modes, or post-prepare signing flow, which keeps it below a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and condition. Both the permissionless payout detail and the sibling exclusion earn their place, with 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 two-parameter prepare tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger condition, permission model, payout recipient, and the main alternative. It is nearly complete, though it could say more about what the prepared unsigned transaction returns or how it should be used next.

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 both job and wallet are already documented in the schema. The description adds useful context about the claim condition and caller permissions, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 job-board claim for pay after 72 hours of poster silence. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the voucher-based project/house report path. An agent can identify the tool and its scope 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?

It gives the exact condition for use (poster silent for 72 hours after delivery), notes that anyone may call it and the worker is paid, and explicitly excludes project (house) report jobs. It names the alternative tool, prepare_board_claim_voucher, for that excluded case.

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