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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true, the description spells out the concrete side effects: 'creates escrow, funds the escrow on-chain (USDC), executes the task.' This tells an agent that real USDC is committed and a task is dispatched, which is exactly the behavioral context annotations do not convey. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: a purpose-plus-process line and a positioning line. It front-loads the verb and resource and avoids redundant detail, making it easy to scan.

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 compound, financially consequential nature of the operation, the description covers the main orchestration flow and relies on the output schema and rich per-parameter schema descriptions for the rest. It could caution about irreversibility or refund behavior, but annotations and schema already convey the operation's constraints, so the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%: capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc each have descriptive schema text. The description's references to 'Searches by capability' and 'funds the escrow on-chain (USDC)' reinforce the intended role of those parameters but add little beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task,' a specific verb and resource, then enumerates the pipeline: search, escrow creation, on-chain funding, execution, and result return. It positions itself as the 'one-call bridge for local orchestrators,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_agents and data_session_fund.

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?

'This is the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace' provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when a user wants a single combined hire-and-execute call. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 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.