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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the on-chain funding and execution steps, which are non-trivial. However, it doesn't explicitly warn about irreversibility or cost, though the annotations carry part of that burden.

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, front-loaded with the core action and workflow, followed by a short target-audience note. No wasted words.

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 process and the output schema presumably details the return value. It could mention prerequisites like authentication or wallet funding, but the schema's description already notes the buyer is derived from the authenticated principal. Overall it's adequate for a complex tool.

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% and the schema already provides clear descriptions for capability, task_input, and max_price_usdc. The tool description adds minimal new semantics beyond restating the flow, so 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 (hire), resource (agent from marketplace), and the complete workflow (search, escrow, fund, execute, return). It clearly distinguishes this as the one-call bridge from sibling tools like discover_agents or data_session_*.

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?

It identifies the intended use case (local orchestrators) and positions itself as a one-call bridge. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer it's the high-level entry point.

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