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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the action is unsigned, has a 48-hour window, and describes guardian timing and the silent-guardian fallback. It still leaves unstated whether the caller must be the job's designated worker wallet and what happens outside the window, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and then the consequential timing rule. The 'Job board:' prefix and parenthetical '(unsigned)' earn their place; nothing 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 two-parameter prepare tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the critical timing, unsigned nature, and escalation fallback. Minor gaps remain around caller authorization and job-state prerequisites, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly in context.

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 the schema already documents both 'job' and 'wallet' clearly. The description adds role context ('WORKER') but does not add syntax, format, or validation details 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: 'prepare (unsigned)' for 'the WORKER disputing a rejection' on the job board. It also references the sibling flow ('claimEscalated pays you in full'), making the distinction from prepare_board_claim_escalated and prepare_board_settle_rejection clear.

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 a clear condition: the WORKER disputing a rejection within 48 hours. The follow-on timeline ('guardian rules within 7 days') and the fallback to claimEscalated provide context for when this step matters, though explicit exclusions or named alternatives for other roles are not spelled out.

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