Post Job

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write nature is known. The description adds that no fee is charged and no funds are held, and it discloses the return structure (status, job_id, expires_at, next_step). It does not mention idempotency or failure modes, but the annotations cover safety and the description gives enough operational context.

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 compact: two sentences of purpose, one workflow sentence, and a return bullet list. It is front-loaded with the core action, then provides sequential context, and ends with expected output. No redundant or filler sentences; every line earns its place.

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?

Given the 8-parameter tool with a required buyer_address and a clear post-then-escrow workflow, the description covers the purpose, next steps, and return shape. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., wallet verification) or uniqueness constraints on job_id, but the schema and annotations give enough for an agent to call it correctly. The output schema exists (not shown) and the description lists key return fields, so completeness is strong but not exhaustive.

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 each parameter is already documented (title, job_id, category, budget_xrp, buyer_name, description, expires_hrs, buyer_address). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the workflow context. It implicitly suggests budget_xrp is optional via 'No fee, no funds held' but that's minor. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post a job to the AgentTrust job board.' It clarifies it does not handle fees or funds, distinguishing it from payment/escrow tools like create_escrow_vault. The workflow mention of list_open_jobs, submit_bid, and award_job positions it clearly as the entry point for creating a job listing.

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 explicitly maps the job lifecycle: post_job → list_open_jobs → submit_bid → award_job → create_escrow_vault. It tells agents when to call this tool (to post) and what comes next, effectively excluding alternatives (e.g., direct_hire, hire_and_pay) that handle payments differently. It also notes 'No fee, no funds held' to signal that payment steps are handled elsewhere.

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