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

Rich disclosure beyond annotations: free posting, no background checks, draft passes the same screens as a real post with failure reasons returned, and a clear hand-off responsibility (say no background checks when handing over the link). One phrase, 'this writes nothing', sits awkwardly against readOnlyHint=false since a draft is persisted and a link is minted; it reads as 'does not post publicly' but is loose enough to be mildly misleading.

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 trigger scenario and the returned artifact before the constraints. Slightly long, with mild redundancy between 'GigNGo never posts on anyone's behalf', 'this writes nothing', and the posting/choosing flow, but nearly every sentence adds a constraint the agent could not infer.

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 5-param draft tool with no output schema, it covers the return value (a link), the screening behavior and error reasons, the platform's non-participation, and what the agent must tell the end user. Nothing needed to call it 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real content guidance for the required field: one person's own words, what needs doing, where, and roughly how big, plus the screening criteria the text will be judged against.

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+resource (draft a job post) and the exact artifact returned: a link the person opens to review and post. It also names what it is not — no hiring, booking, paying, or posting — which lets an agent separate it from every sibling that searches or browses.

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 triggering scenario with concrete examples (put furniture together, mow a lawn, help move, wait in line) and explicit exclusions ('You cannot hire, book or pay anyone through this tool'). No sibling is mis-selected after reading this.

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