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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds contextual workflow guidance but no further behavioral traits such as failure modes, dynamic availability, or output format; 'best available' only hints at availability-awareness.

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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second gives actionable routing guidance. Every word contributes value.

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 tool is simple with 2 parameters, 1 required, and the description plus schema fully cover how to invoke it. The return concept—mapped/recommended services—is inferable from the stated purpose and the downstream reference to create_paid_job.

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%, so `task` and `network` are already well documented. The description reinforces that `task` is a natural-language request but adds no additional parameter-level semantics.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Map' with a clear resource: natural-language task to best available PrivateDAO services. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_paid_job by stating when it should be used, making the tool's role clear among siblings like pdao_services and agent_match.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before create_paid_job when the user has not named a service ID. This provides both a positive trigger and an implied exclusion, and it names the relevant alternative tool.

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