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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds concrete behavioral details beyond that: it creates and funds an escrow on-chain, and notably explains that the buyer agent is derived from the authenticated principal, never from arguments. This discloses meaningful side effects and a non-obvious behavior not present in the 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?

The description is succinct and front-loaded with the primary action ('Hire an agent...'), followed by a brief breakdown of steps and the unique positioning. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making every sentence purposeful.

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 tool is relatively simple with only three params and nested-free inputs, and an output schema is present, so the description need not explain return formatting. It covers the essential flow, the derivation of the buyer agent, and the on-chain funding aspect. It does not mention prerequisites like onboarding, but given sibling tools exist for that, it is reasonably complete for its scope.

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 descriptions already cover all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The overall schema description adds valuable context that the buyer agent is not a parameter and only capability, task, and price ceiling travel in the arguments, which clarifies the role of each parameter in the broader flow. This enriches understanding beyond the simple field descriptions.

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 action ('Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task') and details the process (searches by capability, creates escrow, funds it, executes, returns result). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by calling itself the 'one-call bridge' for local orchestrators, effectively setting it apart from discovery or session-based 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 indicates when to use the tool ('one-call bridge for local orchestrators'), which implies a use case but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as discover_agents or data_session_*. It gives context but lacks a direct 'use this instead of X when...' statement, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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