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

Annotations already communicate mutability, non-idempotency, open-world side effects, and destructiveness. The description adds meaningful specifics beyond those booleans by stating that it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain in USDC, executes the task, and returns the result. This gives an agent a concrete picture of the financial side effects involved.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and the exact sequence of side effects; the second provides audience and use-case positioning. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The input schema is fully documented, an output schema exists, and annotations cover mutation/idempotency/destructiveness. The description adds the one-call orchestration workflow and target user. It does not cover edge cases like no matching agent or excess escrow refunds, but those are not essential for basic invocation.

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 capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc accurately. The description reinforces that capability is used for searching and that funding is in USDC, but it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('hire') and resource ('an agent from the marketplace'), then enumerates the full workflow: search by capability, create escrow, fund on-chain with USDC, execute, and return results. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling discovery/verification/benchmark tools by framing itself as the one-call execution bridge.

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?

It explicitly positions the tool as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.)', which gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, such as preferring discover_agents or get_agent_contract for read-only exploration first.

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