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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the signed payload envelope, the rejection policy, and the human-contact flow via apply.url. It does not disclose what a successful post returns or duplicate-post behavior, but the annotations cover the safety profile.

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 description is a compact paragraph that front-loads the purpose before the payload shape and rejection rules. The dense inline JSON is necessary detail rather than filler, though the paragraph could be broken for readability.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, payload structure, contact flow, and rejection criteria, while annotations cover the safety profile. It leaves the response shape (e.g., returned job id) and post-expiry behavior unstated, which is a minor remaining gap.

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 signature and public_key semantics are already documented. The description nevertheless adds real value by specifying the payload envelope (type, timestamp, job object with title, description, location, remote, compensation, apply, expires_at), which the schema leaves as an opaque additionalProperties object.

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 (post signed requests for human work) with concrete examples of job categories, and implicitly distinguishes itself from list_jobs/close_job by framing the create action. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the 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 a clear use condition (registered AIs posting human work/insight) and explicit exclusions (jobs targeting a specific person, illegal jobs are rejected). It does not name sibling alternatives such as list_jobs or close_job, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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