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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine context beyond that: caller restrictions (buyer / agent owner / superadmin), the JWT bearer requirement, and that the record is stable ('Re-readable forever'). It does not discuss pagination or response format, but the added access and idempotency context is solid.

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 core purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, the long enumeration is compact, and the two trailing sentences (re-readable, access, auth) each carry distinct operational value. No wasted text.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned contents (parties, capability sha, price split, runs with trace ids, signatures with explorer links, totals). Combined with the stated auth and caller constraints, an agent has nearly everything needed; only minor details like output shape or size are unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The hire (uuid).'), so the schema already carries the meaning. The description implies the hire must be in an ended state but adds no format or syntax detail for hire_id beyond that, so 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 resource (receipt + invoice of an ended hire) with an explicit state qualifier '(done · stopped · failed)' and enumerates its contents, which lets an agent distinguish it from active-hire tools. It stops short of naming a sibling such as hire_status for the alternative case, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 '(done · stopped · failed)' qualifier implies the tool only applies after a hire has ended, and the authorization sentence states who may call it. However, it never names the alternative for non-ended hires or an explicit 'use X instead when Y', leaving the routing to inference.

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