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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotent, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the post is public and accepting applications immediately upon creation, the owner only sees/answers applicants after opening the publish link and signing in (~30 seconds), and applications arrive via link and QR code. It does not warn about duplicate postings, given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Wait—reconsidering: the description is three long sentences with a slightly tangled middle clause about the publish link and sign-in, but each sentence carries distinct information (what it makes, how applications flow, what is public). It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler.

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 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the workflow but never states what the caller gets back (presumably the job link and QR code) or how to read/answer applicants afterwards via get_job. Optional parameters such as city, country, pay_unit, temporary and description are left entirely to the schema.

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 77%, so the schema already documents most fields with examples (area, role, pay, hours, must_haves). The description echoes the headline fields (business name, pay, hours, area) and notes the business name is what appears publicly, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Make a job for a small business on Instead") and states it is free, so an agent knows this is the create-side counterpart to get_job/search_jobs. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the read/write split rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description makes clear this is the tool that publishes a new opening, and it hints at a prerequisite by saying the owner must sign in with their email to publish. It gives no explicit when-to-use versus how_to_hire, make_hiring_poster, or pay_rates, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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