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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, and executes the task—clarifying the financial side effects and the fact that this is a paid operation. It does not detail failure modes or prerequisites, but the annotation coverage is strong and no contradiction exists.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence gives the core action, the second lists the operational flow, and the third frames the tool's use context. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is 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?

For a tool with 3 params and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers the full pipeline, the financial implication, and the intended audience. It does not mention prerequisites such as onboarding/registration or the need for a USDC balance, but these are implicitly covered by the one-call bridge framing and the annotated destructiveHint. This is a minor completeness gap.

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 defines capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc clearly. The description aligns with these params by mentioning 'searches by capability' and 'price ceiling', but it does not add meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the exact pipeline (searches by capability, creates escrow, funds on-chain, executes, returns result), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like discover_agents or data_session_fund. The 'one-call bridge' phrase reinforces that this single tool replaces a multi-step workflow.

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 positions the tool as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.)', giving clear context for when to use it. It implies alternatives exist (manual multi-step marketplace interactions), but it does not name specific siblings or state when not to use this tool. This is a minor gap, so 4 rather than 5.

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