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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain in USDC, executes the task, and returns the result. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the financial side effect and the operation sequence.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and outcome; the second adds the key positioning. Every clause contributes purpose, behavior, or usage context.

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?

For a complex multi-step tool, the description covers the essential flow and states that it returns the result; an output schema exists, so return details need not be explained. It does not mention timing, wallet prerequisites, or failure modes, but the annotations and schema cover the core safety profile and parameters.

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 already described (capability, task_input, max_price_usdc). The tool description adds only a minor reinforcement that hiring is 'by capability,' but it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then lists the full sequence of actions (searches by capability, creates escrow, funds on-chain, executes, returns result), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like data_session_fund or discover_agents. The phrase 'one-call bridge' reinforces its unique role among the 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 states clear context: 'This is the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace.' This implies it is the integrated alternative to step-by-step marketplace operations, which helps an agent choose it over multi-step siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions.

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