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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, so the description's mention of creating escrow and funding on-chain aligns with that. It adds value beyond annotations by detailing the multi-step flow (search, escrow, funding, execution) and the on-chain USDC aspect, which provides context on the side effects. No contradiction detected.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes a clear statement of purpose ('one-call bridge') with no filler. Every sentence contributes essential context about the tool's scope and workflow.

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 tool's complexity (escrow creation, on-chain funding, execution) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential steps and target audience. It doesn't mention prerequisites like wallet setup or failure handling, but the output schema and annotations fill some gaps. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether to call it.

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% with each parameter (capability, task_input, max_price_usdc) already described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 an agent... to execute a task') with a clear resource (marketplace agent) and explicitly lists the steps (searches, creates escrow, funds on-chain, executes, returns result). It also differentiates itself from siblings by calling itself the 'one-call bridge' for local orchestrators, which distinguishes it from multi-step tools like 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?

The description gives context ('one-call bridge for local orchestrators') implying it's for single-call use, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It lacks exclusions or references to multi-step sibling workflows. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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