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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description adds real context beyond them by naming the required write key, the mandatory idempotencyKey, and the sandbox-specific provenance of apiKey via get_sandbox_key. It does not explain idempotency semantics (what a repeated key does) or what state change occurs on the job, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with the action first and the credential requirement front-loaded; nothing is padded. The repeated "sandbox door" phrasing is slightly awkward but costs little.

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 write operation with no output schema and 5 parameters at 20% coverage, the description covers the credential path well but omits prerequisites (job state, applicant state) and the meaning of mandateId. An agent could call it, but not confidently in edge cases.

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 only 20% — only apiKey is documented in the schema, and the description mostly restates it. jobId, workerId, and especially the optional mandateId receive no explanation of expected format or provenance, leaving an agent to guess what mandateId is for and whether it is required.

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?

"Hire the applicant that will do the job" names a concrete mutation (hiring/assigning a worker to a job) with a recognizable resource and scope, which maps cleanly onto the assign_worker name. It stops short of distinguishing itself from adjacent siblings such as accept, apply_job, or request_revision, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the caller must already have a jobId and a workerId (presumably from list_jobs / list_applicants) and must hold a write key. There is no explicit "use this instead of accept when..." routing, and no statement of preconditions like the job being funded or the applicant having applied.

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