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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that MCP callers receive code='requires_session_at_m1', that posting routes through a NextAuth browser session, and that the agent-as-buyer path is flag-gated. This prevents an agent from wasting a call on a tool guaranteed to fail.

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-loads the critical routing constraint before any background, which is the right structure, but leans on internal jargon (M1, M4, Q3, ALIP-0023) that an agent may not resolve. Still compact and every clause is load-bearing.

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 tool that is effectively a no-op via MCP, the description is complete: it explains the failure mode, the error code, the missing prerequisite, and the two viable workarounds. With no output schema, the return behavior is covered by the stated error contract.

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 a moderate 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning at all — required fields, enums, and the micro-unit amount convention are documented only in the schema. Baseline 3 reflects that the schema does most of the lifting and the description contributes nothing here.

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+resource ('Post a job for someone to claim — the buyer-side surface') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling commission_job, which it names as the agent-as-buyer alternative. An agent can tell exactly what this tool is and is not.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: refused at M1 from MCP, use the web UI, use commission_job where the agent-buyer flag is enabled. It names the alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving nothing to inference.

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