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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it describes the on-chain escrow funding, the execution of the task, and the return of results. It also clarifies that the buyer agent is derived from the principal, which is crucial information for understanding authorization. While annotations already convey destructiveness, this description enriches the context.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently summarizes the pipeline. It avoids repetitive wording and provides a clear high-level picture with minimal fluff.

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 description covers the full scope of the tool's function: hiring, funding, execution, and result return. It also positions the tool within the marketplace ecosystem by mentioning the local-orchestrator use case. With an output schema and annotations available, no critical behavior is left unexplained.

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%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does reinforce the relationship between the parameters and the execution flow (e.g., max_price_usdc as the ceiling). This meets the baseline for schema-heavy tools.

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 clearly states a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task' and outlines the multi-step process. It does not explicitly reference sibling tools, but the unique qualifier 'one-call bridge' is sufficient to differentiate from the other listed 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?

The description implies the primary use case ('for local agents to use the marketplace') and the phrase 'one-call bridge' suggests a high-level convenience entry point. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like discover_agents or check_earnings for more granular orchestration.

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