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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers the key behavioral facts: the call only prepares an unsigned transaction, permissionless access, and the exact economic outcome (worker recovers bond plus 10% of reward, nothing on a house job, remainder back to the poster). It does not state what happens if the preconditions fail or whether the returned transaction must then be signed and broadcast.

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, no waste. The identifying action and precondition come first, then the payout consequences, which is the right front-loading for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what it does, who may call, the timing precondition, and the money flow — enough to invoke it correctly. It lacks failure-mode behavior and a note on what the returned unsigned payload looks like, which are the remaining gaps.

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%: the wallet parameter already explains that it is a read-only sender used for balance/allowance checks and simulation, and job is documented as the job id. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 — preparing an unsigned transaction that closes a rejected job board entry — and names the underlying contract call (settleRejection). The 48-hour un-escalated rejection condition is precise enough to separate it from the many adjacent prepare_board_* siblings (reject, escalate, claim_escalated) without opening their schemas.

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 trigger condition is explicit: use it once a rejection has gone un-escalated for 48 hours. 'Anyone may call it' also clarifies there is no role restriction. It stops short of naming the alternative paths (what to do if it was escalated, or if 48 hours have not elapsed), so the agent must infer the exclusions.

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