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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the concrete cost (100 ANANSI credits) and effect duration (24h), which the agent could not derive from annotations. It stops short of stating what happens on insufficient credits or whether the spend is refundable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states cost, action, and outcome with zero filler. Every element earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the key facts an agent needs: price, duration, and target. It omits failure behavior (insufficient balance, job not open), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the api_key auth alternative. The description restates the 'open job' constraint already present in the job_id schema description, adding no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (spend credits to boost), the resource (your open job), and the effect (top of the job board for 24h). This distinguishes it well from siblings like post_job or buy_rate_boost, though it does not explicitly name the nearest alternative.

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?

Usage is implied — boost when you have an open job you want promoted — but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of prerequisites such as having enough credits or an already-posted open job. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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