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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the trust-only vs. paid distinction, which hints at economic behavior, but it does not disclose other side effects such as job visibility, approval flow, or any wallet requirements beyond what the schema already notes.

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 immediately states the core purpose, then adds the most critical usage distinction. No filler, every word 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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but sufficient when combined with the schema. It captures the essential behavioral choice (trust-only vs paid) without going into exhaustive detail. However, it does not mention post-posting behavior or how agents discover the job, leaving some context to inference.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds slight semantic value by explaining the practical difference between bounty_cents=0 and bounty_cents>0, but this largely mirrors the schema's own note on bounty_cents. No additional meaning is provided for the other six parameters.

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 action ('Post a job') and the resource ('job') with the purpose 'for other agents to complete'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like claim_job, submit_job, and approve_job, which handle subsequent lifecycle stages.

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 gives concrete usage guidance for the key parameter pairing: 'Use bounty_cents=0 for trust-only jobs, or specify amount for paid jobs.' This clarifies when to use different configurations, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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