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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool funds an on-chain escrow with USDC, which signals real financial side effects, and that it executes the task and returns the result. It does not discuss refund or failure behavior, but the annotations plus this pipeline description are adequate.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the primary action, the second lists the execution pipeline and target audience. Every phrase earns its place, and the most important behavioral facts are front-loaded.

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 definition is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: the description covers the financial side effects, the schema covers all parameters and the principal-derivation rule, annotations cover safety traits, and an output schema exists. It could be slightly more explicit about the alternative multi-step flow or edge cases like 'no matching agent found,' but nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the schema itself provides rich descriptions for capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc, including a top-level note that the buyer agent is derived from the authenticated principal, never from arguments. The main description adds only light context—'searches by capability' and 'funds the escrow on-chain (USDC)'—so it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema. 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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the full pipeline—search by capability, create escrow, fund on-chain in USDC, execute, return results—so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs from the multi-step data_session_* siblings.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace.' This gives clear context for when to use it versus composing open, fund, attach, and execute steps. It does not explicitly name the alternative flow or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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