post_job

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the signing requirement and the act of delegation, but omits details about job lifecycle (e.g., response handling, status updates) or side effects. It conveys the core operation but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 three sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, providing usage context, and giving a critical prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should be more informative. It does not explain what happens after submission, how to track the job, or what the return value is (e.g., job ID). This omission makes it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for parameter names and meanings. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it repeats the signing guidance that is already in the signature parameter's description. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it submits a service request to another agent, using a specific verb ('submits') and resource ('service request/job'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pay_agent' and 'check_inbox' by mentioning delegation based on the provider's manifest.

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 specifies when to use this tool ('delegate tasks defined in the provider's manifest') and includes a prerequisite ('sign the payload before posting'), which hints at using 'sign_handshake' first. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude usage scenarios or list alternatives.

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