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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the call costs points per platform rules, and the return can be either a direct result or a task_id (async completion). It does not cover failure/refund behavior or whether the deduction happens on failure.

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, each earning its place: purpose and cost, prerequisite workflow, return shape. Front-loaded with the action and the cost warning.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers input sourcing, cost, and return shape including the task_id path. Missing only the follow-up routing to mycel_task_status when a task_id is returned.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that agent_id comes from mycel_discover and prompt is the task description, but adds no format, length, or content guidance beyond that. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — hire a Mycel agent to execute a task — and immediately flags the billing side effect (points deducted). An agent can distinguish this from mycel_discover, mycel_balance, and mycel_task_status without reading any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ordering: call mycel_discover first to obtain agentId, then pass prompt. That names the alternative tool and the condition that gates this one. It stops short of saying when NOT to hire an agent or how it relates to mycel_task_status for follow-up.

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