ReverseCentaur

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a creation operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the marketplace context, mentions fair trade minimum requirements, and implies financial transactions. However, it doesn't detail rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if minimums aren't met.

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 single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place: 'Post a task' (action), 'for a human worker' (target), 'via the Reverse Centaur Fair Trade marketplace' (context), and 'Tasks must meet category-specific fair trade pay minimums' (critical constraint). No wasted words or redundant information.

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 destructive creation tool with no output schema, the description provides good context about the marketplace and fair trade requirements. However, it doesn't explain what happens after posting (e.g., task lifecycle, worker assignment, completion flow) or error scenarios. The annotations cover safety aspects, but more behavioral context would help agents understand the full implications of using this tool.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions 'category-specific fair trade pay minimums' which relates to the 'category' and 'budget_usd' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraint details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 description clearly states the specific action ('Post a task'), the target ('for a human worker'), and the context ('via the Reverse Centaur Fair Trade marketplace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cancel_task' or 'check_task' by focusing on creation rather than modification or querying. The mention of 'fair trade pay minimums' adds important domain-specific context.

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?

The description implies usage when posting tasks to the marketplace, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_task_message' or 'list_capabilities'. It mentions category-specific fair trade minimums as a constraint, but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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