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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds concrete side effects by stating it creates escrow, funds it on-chain with USDC, and executes the task. This reveals the financial and irreversible nature of the call, though it does not cover failure or 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words: the first states the core action, and the second condenses the internal workflow and intended audience. The most important scoping phrase, 'one-call bridge,' is placed prominently.

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 end-to-end behavior, the on-chain payment implication, and the target use case, which is sufficient given the rich schema descriptions and annotations. The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description.

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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond mentioning capability search and task execution, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the full pipeline—search by capability, create escrow, fund on-chain, execute, return result—which clearly differentiates it from session-based or discovery-only sibling 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 explicitly frames this as 'the one-call bridge for local orchestrators,' which conveys when to use it over a multi-step manual flow. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like data_session_open or discover_agents, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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