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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds substantive behavior: the closed six-word output vocabulary with definitions, the explicit refusal to make qualification/hiring decisions, and the returned receipt hash the caller can anchor. Cost/signer and public-mirror details round it out.

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 opening "Machine comparison, human decision" front-loads the key framing and the six-word taxonomy follows immediately. There is avoidable redundancy, though: "Free, keyless, read-only" is repeated as "free and keyless, nothing to sign" in the final sentence.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining decision-relevant context: what each returned word means, the no-decision guarantee, and the receipt hash. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this correctly 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 baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that years-of-experience and free-text requirements always resolve to human_judgment_required, which ties the schema's requirement kinds to observable output. It does not restate the comma/pipe syntax, which the schema already handles.

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 concrete operation: take a wallet's titles and a job's requirements, return exactly one of six classification words per requirement. The enumerated outcome vocabulary makes the purpose unmistakable and separates it from sibling listing tools like worker_titles or verify_work.

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?

"Give a wallet and the requirements of a job or project" establishes the input context and the decision-support framing clearly. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it (e.g., to just list titles, use worker_titles), so explicit routing is missing.

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