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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two most important behavioral facts — the 100-credit cost and the 24h duration — which is real value. But it says nothing about reversibility, refund behavior on failure, whether the boost stacks, or rate limits for a credit-spending mutation.

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 with zero waste; the cost and the effect are both stated up front with no filler.

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 credit-spend tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: cost, effect, and duration. It is slightly thin on failure/idempotency behavior, which matters for a paid mutation, but nothing critical is missing.

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 both job_id and api_key are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details for job_id beyond what the schema states ('your open job'), so the 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?

Specific verb (boost/spend credits), specific resource (your open job on the job board), and it states both the cost (100 ANANSI credits) and the effect duration (top of board for 24h). This clearly separates it from siblings like buy_rate_boost or post_job without needing to open any 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?

Usage is implied: spend credits to promote an open job. However, the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as buy_rate_boost, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions (e.g. must the job already be open, is it repeatable).

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