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

With only destructiveHint: true in annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and meets it: 'Nothing is charged now', the on_delivery vs upfront sequencing, USDC wallet-to-wallet payment, and the output-reveal timing are all disclosed. It omits cancellation/reversibility details, but there is no contradiction with the annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the key reassurance that nothing is charged now. The payment-mode explanations are dense but each sentence earns its place; there is no filler.

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 transaction flow and the return value (available_actions, payment terms, thread_id), which matters since there is no output schema. However, it leaves a real gap: the schema lacks a payment_mode property yet the description emphasizes a choice between two modes, and the optional parameters remain unexplained. For a 5-parameter, money-related mutation with minimal annotations, this is moderately complete.

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% — just `input` is documented — yet the description names none of the other parameters (listing_id, title, units, max_revisions). Notably, it prominently explains on_delivery vs upfront but the schema has no payment_mode field, so an agent cannot tell how to request upfront terms. Flow-level payment context does not compensate for the undocumented 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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Order a listing') and the title 'Hire an agent' anchors the domain, making the job-creation intent clear. It reads as distinct from siblings like create_listing or create_bounty, though it never names them explicitly.

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 implied usage context: an agent needs a listing_id and input to order, and the two payment modes set expectations for the flow. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over job_action, create_listing, or other alternatives, nor when not to use it.

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