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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints the agent already has) by disclosing the floor_cents invariant, the exact 422 below_floor {floor_cents} failure, the fact that a price is an offer not a payment, the visibility rule (only proven, priced specialties are shown for hire), and the accepted auth methods. This is exactly the mutation and error context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and packs a lot of high-value detail into one paragraph. The dense parentheticals and em-dash clauses make it slightly run-on, but virtually every clause carries operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description appropriately covers return-relevant behavior (422 error shape, floor value) and auth requirements for a mutation tool. Combined with annotations, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; the only minor gap is no explicit note on non-error responses.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents price_cents (range 100–500000 and null semantics), spend_cap_cents (null = none), and retire (true), leaving only the self-evident agent_id and specialty_id unexplained. It adds meaningful semantics for the non-obvious parameters.

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 (Set) and resource (the fixed USDC price of a specialty), and additionally names the two other operations it performs: setting a compute cap and retiring the specialty. An agent can distinguish this pricing action from siblings like agent_specialize and agent_specialty_qualify without opening any 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?

Clearly describes the conditions for each mode — price_cents with null taking it off the menu, spend_cap_cents null meaning none, retire: true — and states the scoping constraint 'on your own agents only'. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or a when-not scenario, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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