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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that the call is unsigned (nothing is sent), permissionless, and describes the economic consequences — reward returns to the poster and a worker's bond is split half to poster, half to the sink. It omits revert conditions or what happens if preconditions are unmet, but the safety-relevant behavior is well 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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the domain ('Job board') and the action. The parentheticals each add real information (unsigned, expire trigger, bond split arithmetic) rather than padding.

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 2-parameter tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies the trigger condition, permission model, unsigned nature, and fund flows — everything an agent needs to decide and call. Only failure/revert behavior is unaddressed.

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 parameters are already documented, including the non-obvious note that the wallet is only used for balance/allowance reads and simulation. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 names a specific action (prepare an unsigned transaction), the resource (a job board job), and the exact condition that triggers it (deadline passed without delivery). It is legible as distinct from prepare_board_cancel or prepare_board_reject, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

The precondition 'deadline passed without a delivery' is a concrete when-to-use rule, and 'anyone may call it' clarifies permission. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or pointing to the alternative paths (cancel, reject, escalate) for jobs that did not expire.

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