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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so credit goes to what is added: the Immediate vs Selection mode semantics, the on-chain hash verification of each advert, the wallet eligibility check with reasons, and the no-filter behaviour that surfaces leftover board items. It stops short of describing result shape or ordering, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

The core purpose leads, followed by mode semantics, verification, wallet check, and finally the filter. Sentences are dense but each carries information; the long category enumeration is the only block that reads as a list dump rather than prose.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers modes, verification guarantees, wallet-conditioned output, and no-filter side effects. The main residual gap is not stating shape, ordering or volume of the returned list, which an agent needs to plan around.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns above it by enumerating all sixteen valid category names, which the schema's generic "A category name or number" does not provide. It only omits clarification that the schema also accepts a numeric index.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource with scope: "List the jobs open right now on the Panal board with rules (PanalTablon)", immediately narrowing to jobs paid for without an agent chosen. It distinguishes this listing from the taking flow by naming panal_claim_task for leftover jobs, though it never contrasts itself with panal_board_job, the closest listing sibling.

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?

It explains the consequence of omitting the filter ("it also lists what is left from the previous board"), which implicitly guides whether to filter. But there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over panal_board_job or panal_search_agents, nor any exclusion for when this listing is the wrong entry point.

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