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

Annotations only cover safety flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the description carries meaningful extra burden and delivers: moderation queueing, delayed publication, Pro-perk eligibility, role-count limits, and the confirmation requirement. This is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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 dense sentences, eligibility and workflow front-loaded, zero filler. The 'Like the dashboard form' analogy efficiently conveys behavior without extra words.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and a confirmation flow documented in the schema, the description covers prerequisites, moderation lifecycle, and limits. It omits what happens on rejection or any failure modes, but nothing critical to calling correctly 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 coverage is 57%, so some parameters (title, role_type, description) have no textual description anywhere. The description adds valuable eligibility context about the 'listing' parameter (must be the user's own, needs Pro perks), but says nothing about role_type or the other bare fields. Adequate but with a visible gap.

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 verb and resource: 'Submit a job opening on one of the user's listings.' This is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling list_jobs. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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 concrete preconditions (active Pro perks on the listing, max 5 open/pending roles) and the workflow (moderation first, published after approval, user confirmation required). It stops short of naming alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the eligibility constraints guide the agent well.

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