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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful process detail: it creates escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, executes the task, and returns the result. It also conveys that this is a real on-chain financial action, which is important context. It does not contradict the annotations, though it stops short of discussing irreversibility or failure/refund behavior.

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 with no filler: the first states the core action, the second details the operational steps, and the third identifies the target integrator. The most important information is front-loaded, and 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?

For a complex, money-moving tool, the description covers the essential behavioral flow and audience, while annotations cover the side-effect profile and the output schema covers return values. The only notable gap is explicit discussion of failure cases, escrow refunds, or what happens if the hired agent cannot complete the task.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds some context—'searches by capability' and 'funds the escrow on-chain (USDC)'—but it does not meaningfully compensate beyond the schema. The schema's own top-level note about the buyer agent being derived from the authenticated principal is also important but is part of the schema, not the tool description.

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 verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the concrete steps (search, escrow, funding, execution, result), making it unambiguous what the tool does. The 'one-call bridge' framing also helps distinguish this integrated operation from the more granular data_session_* and discover_agents 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 gives clear usage context by positioning this as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace.' This implies it is the integrated path versus step-by-step alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name which sibling tools should be used instead for finer-grained control.

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