create_listing

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. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the payment requirement ($0.50 USDC), rate limits (5 listings/day for PRO), bypass options (x402 payment bypasses limits), and the passive recruitment nature ('wait for qualified humans to come to you'). It doesn't fully describe error conditions or response formats, but provides substantial 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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function, differentiating from alternatives, and providing operational requirements. There's no wasted language, and the most critical information (purpose and prerequisites) appears first.

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 tool with 16 parameters and no annotations, the description provides strong contextual coverage of purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral requirements. It lacks information about return values (no output schema exists) and doesn't cover all edge cases, but gives sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 job listing'), the target resource ('Human Pages job board'), and the intended outcome ('for humans to discover and apply to'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'create_job_offer' by explaining that listings are for open recruitment while job offers target specific individuals.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives ('Unlike create_job_offer... listings let you describe work and wait for qualified humans'), prerequisites ('Requires a registered agent or x402 payment'), and rate limit information ('PRO = 5 listings/day. x402 bypasses limits'). This gives clear context for tool selection.

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