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

The description reveals non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: it 'creates escrow, funds the escrow on-chain (USDC), executes the task,' which tells the agent this is a real financial mutation. It is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and it adds pipeline context rather than 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?

Three tight sentences with the primary action first, followed by the operational flow and the usage context. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler or restatement.

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?

For a multi-step financial tool, the description packs in the essential one-call nature, the on-chain USDC funding, escrow creation, and result return. With output schema and fully covered input schema, it is complete for calling; only prerequisites like onboarding and funding are left implicit.

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 with examples and defaults. The description adds little beyond mapping capability to 'searches by capability' and task to execution, which is not substantial extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific action: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task,' then enumerates the full pipeline (search, escrow, USDC funding, execution, result). It is differentiated from modular siblings by being called a 'one-call bridge,' so an agent can distinguish it from discover_agents and data_session_* tools.

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 clearly positions when to use the tool: 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace.' This gives clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives 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.