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

Goes far beyond the annotations: paid URL at 0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet via x402 exact, 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, mandatory X-Wever-Wallet-Proof bound to the exact JSON args and path, 25 USDC order cap, escrow-lite rail with fees and principal kept separate, dispute/expiry refund rules, and explicit prohibitions (no private keys, no payee substitution, no granted authority). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and most of the dense clauses carry load-bearing payment, proof and refund rules. There is minor redundancy (the 25.00 USDC cap is stated twice) and the sentence stack is heavy, but the length is defensible for a payment-bearing tool.

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?

Covers payment, proof, caps, lifecycle states, dispute/refund behavior and defers schema detail to /api/workorder-contract, which is appropriate. With no output schema it does not describe the response shape (e.g. returned order id), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

With only 25% schema coverage, the description compensates by mapping the core inputs (worker wallet, title, description, acceptance criteria, USDC price, deadline) to their meaning and adding the 25 USDC cap on price. It leaves idempotency_key and usage undocumented, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates immutable work terms for an order') and immediately enumerates the fields the hirer must supply. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lifecycle tools (workorder-accept, -fund, -deliver, -release, -dispute) because it is the creation step.

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 description lists the normal state sequence (open, funded, accepted, delivered, released), which positions this as the entry point, and points to /api/workorder-contract for schemas. But it never explicitly says when to call this versus workorder-fund or workorder-accept, nor names a prerequisite order.

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