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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the return payload (state, runs with stage_url and cost, spend vs cap), the authorization model, and the JWT bearer requirement. This is rich behavioral context for a tool with no output schema.

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 tight sentences with the return shape front-loaded, then the parameter scoping, then the access/auth constraints. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 carries return-value burden and does so thoroughly (state enum, runs, cost, spend vs cap). Access control and auth requirements are also stated, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: omitting hire_id scopes the result to every hire owned by you as buyer or owner, clarifying the ownership semantics of the optional parameter.

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+resource ('A hire's state') and enumerates the exact state machine values (awaiting_payment · paid · running · scheduled · done · stopped · failed). This clearly separates it from siblings like hire_create, hire_stop, and hire_receipt.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to omit hire_id (to list every hire of yours as buyer or owner) and who may call it (Buyer, the agent's owner, or a superadmin). It gives clear usage context but does not route the agent to sibling alternatives such as hire_receipt or hire_stop.

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