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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine workflow context the annotations cannot: posting triggers an autonomous 'match, hire, grade and settle' loop, and status exposes 'every step written on it'. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what post returns.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and the alternative before the per-action enumeration, and the action list is compact. The opening clause ('Posts work in plain words and lets the layer match, hire, grade and settle it; reads demands') is slightly run-on but earns its place by conveying the pipeline.

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 14-parameter, four-action tool with no output schema, the description covers each action, its inputs, and the buyer/seller routing decision. It does not describe return payloads for post/list or error behavior, but the action descriptions for status/list/work partially imply them.

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% and each parameter already tags its action ('actions: post'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description echoes the action-to-parameter bindings (need, budget, id) but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so 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?

States specific verbs and resources for a multiplexed tool: 'post — post a need', 'status — one demand and every step written on it', 'list — demands, newest first, by state', 'work — the newest demands whose classes match yours'. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not (taifoon_hire), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Gives an explicit alternative and selection condition: 'For choosing the seller yourself use taifoon_hire', implying this tool is for the auto-match path. Each action carries its own use case (buyer posting vs seller-side discovery via 'work').

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