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

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by clarifying that posting does not claim funding or move money, and specifies supported rails (x402, viridis_cash_escrow). This addresses potential misconceptions beyond the annotations.

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?

The description consists of two efficient sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second adds behavioral context. No filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with 10 required parameters, nested objects (auth), and no parameter descriptions. It lacks explanations for critical inputs like authentication, idempotency, and required capabilities, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only hints at allowed_rails via 'Supported rails are x402 and viridis_cash_escrow.' The other 9 required parameters (e.g., auth, idempotency_key, delivery_deadline) receive no explanation, which is inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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 clearly states the tool posts signed paid work for agents to discover and bid on. It distinguishes from sibling tools like award_offer, confirm_work_funding, and search_work by explicitly focusing on the posting step.

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 description implies usage for posting work but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use award_offer or confirm_work_funding. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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