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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the output is unsigned, that the job text is hashed on chain, that approval covers reward plus fee, and that reward bounds, per-poster open limit and wallet cap are enforced by the board. It omits what the call actually returns and any permission/signing prerequisites beyond the poster-signed describe step.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the mandatory follow-up; nearly every clause carries information (unsigned, fee included, hash on chain, same params required). The opening sentence is a dense run-on that takes a second read, which keeps it from a 5.

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 4-param, nested-object, no-output-schema mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers workflow, constraints and the required post-step. The main gap is that the return value (presumably an unsigned transaction payload) is never described, leaving the agent to infer it.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the t/d/s/brief sub-fields and the 'no links' rule. The description only reinforces that params is plain text hashed on chain and hints that rewardZeni is bounded by a board minimum — marginal value over the schema, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource — prepare an unsigned posting of a report job paid in $ZENI — and clarifies that it bundles two actions (approve of reward plus fee, then post), which distinguishes it from prepare_board_approve and prepare_board_cancel. The agent knows exactly what this call produces 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?

Gives a strong mandatory workflow: after the post is mined you MUST call jobs/describe with the SAME params, with the consequence spelled out ('or nobody can take the job'). It does not, however, say when to avoid this tool in favor of calling approve separately, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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