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

Annotations already signal mutability (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, openWorldHint true, idempotentHint false). The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it 'creates escrow, funds the escrow on-chain (USDC), executes the task, and returns the result.' This discloses the financial side effect and the end-to-end execution model without contradicting the annotations.

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 description is two sentences with no wasted words. The action-first sentence front-loads the main behavior, and the second sentence explains the integration context. Every clause 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?

Given the tool's complexity (on-chain escrow, funding, agent execution), the description covers the key flow, the intended caller, and the result. The output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere. It could add failure/refund behavior, but the core usage context is complete.

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 explains capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc. The description adds light semantic context by tying capability to the search step and USDC to escrow funding, but it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the full pipeline—search, escrow, funding, execution, result—which clearly differentiates it from sibling discovery/contract/verification tools like discover_agents and get_agent_contract.

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 description gives clear context: it is the 'one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace.' It implies this is the end-to-end choice versus multi-step alternatives, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative flows.

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