post_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a genuinely important behavioral trait beyond the schema: the budget is escrowed at post time, meaning funds move immediately. It does not cover permission/authorization requirements or what the caller receives back, but the escrow disclosure is the highest-value fact for a spend action.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, and the routing decision is front-loaded alongside the escrow warning. Each sentence carries a distinct piece of information: purpose, decision rule, follow-on steps.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the escrow consequence, and the surrounding tool workflow. It stops short of stating what is returned on success (e.g. a job identifier) or any permission prerequisites, which an agent would need for a clean call.

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 all seven parameters are already documented with meaning (escrow source wallet, budget before fees, skill tags, idempotency, expiry/refund default). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('post a job to the public board') plus the key differentiator: applicants apply rather than you selecting someone. An agent can distinguish this from hire_human without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('when you do not know who should do the work') and the named alternative with its own condition ('use hire_human when you already do'). It also sketches the follow-on workflow via get_job and assign_job.

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