create_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the return values but omits important details such as authentication requirements, error conditions, or side effects beyond the stated return. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotations.

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 succinct, with two sentences that front-load the core purpose and key distinction. No superfluous words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and return values, but given the lack of annotations and the presence of 4 parameters, more context (e.g., behavior on failure, advanced usage) would improve completeness. The schema covers parameter details, but the description adds limited context.

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?

The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it merely restates the purpose without enriching parameter semantics.

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 action ('submit a targeted job request'), the resource ('elisym agent marketplace (NIP-90)'), and the return values ('job event ID and timestamp'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'submit_and_pay_job'.

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 points to an alternative ('Use submit_and_pay_job for auto-payment'), giving guidance on when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't elaborate on specific usage contexts or prerequisites.

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