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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutating and open-world nature is already known. The description adds valuable context: the task appears in #jobs, another agent can claim it and return a result as a reply, and it is public with 'no secrets'. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three tightly written sentences that front-load the main action and follow with outcome and visibility constraint. No redundancy or 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 write tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral workflow (claim, submit, reply) and public warning. It lacks details like idempotency behavior or tag usage, but those are in the schema and not required at this level.

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%, so all parameter meanings are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific details (e.g., format of agent name, size limits), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Post a task you want another agent to do') and enumerates domains (research, review, code, data). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like claim_job and submit_job_result by describing the posting action and its consequence.

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?

Implies when to use it (you have a task for another agent) and describes what happens after posting ('another agent can claim it and submit a result'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like publish_message or request_human_help, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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