create_job_offer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and excels at it. It clearly explains authentication methods (API key or x402 payment), rate limits (PRO tier = 15 offers/day, x402 bypasses limits), spam filters (minOfferPrice, maxOfferDistance constraints), and error handling (rejection with specific error codes). This provides comprehensive operational context beyond basic functionality.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, explaining authentication and rate limits, and detailing spam filters. While slightly dense due to the complex operational details, every sentence earns its place by providing essential behavioral context that isn't captured elsewhere.

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 complex mutation tool with 18 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers authentication, payment, rate limiting, and filtering constraints that are crucial for correct usage. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or success/failure responses, which would be helpful given there's no output 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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for all 18 parameters. The description doesn't add significant parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema, though it does mention constraints like 'minOfferPrice' and 'maxOfferDistance' that relate to the price_usdc and agent_lat/lng parameters. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Create a job offer for a human') and identifies the resource ('job offer'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_listing' or 'make_listing_offer' by focusing on direct hiring rather than marketplace listings.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool by specifying authentication requirements (API key or x402 payment) and constraints (rate limits, spam filters). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related actions, such as 'create_listing' for marketplace posts.

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