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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and delivers. It discloses 'Deterministic arithmetic, no custody, no execution,' which clarifies the tool only plans and does not trade or hold funds. It also explains the on-chain escrow cost, the wallet-signed quote, and the workflow (sign calldata, fund, tell agent). This is excellent behavioral disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 longer than the ideal but every sentence contributes: purpose, outputs, safety guarantees, workflow, cost, schema reference, and an example. It is front-loaded with purpose and does not waste words, though the workflow sentence is dense and could be split for clarity. Given the tool's complexity, this structure earns a 4.

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?

This is a complex tool involved in a multi-step agent hiring process, and the description covers the full orientation: the planning outputs, the quote/calldata handoff, the funding step, the cost model, and the external schema link. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it even goes beyond by describing the broader hiring workflow. No necessary context is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds value by mapping the core inputs ('Given current holdings, target weights and prices') to the actual parameters, providing a complete JSON example, and linking to the agent card for the authoritative schema. This exceeds the baseline 3.

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 'Plan a hire of the ChainHelix rebalancer agent' – a specific verb, resource, and agent type. It further distinguishes itself from sibling hire_plan_gridtrader, hire_plan_healthmon, and hire_plan_yieldopt by naming the rebalancer and detailing its rebalancing outputs (current vs target weights, drift, trade list).

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when a user needs a rebalancing plan from the ChainHelix rebalancer agent. It provides the input context (holdings, targets, prices) and notes the free/paid distinction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the agent-specific naming makes the selection unambiguous.

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