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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: the exact six-word response vocabulary with per-word meaning, the receipt hash the decider can anchor, and the keyless/free access model. These are behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core framing ("Machine comparison, human decision") and dense with useful content, but the non-decision disclaimer is partly restated ("never makes hiring... decisions" and "never says qualified and never decides"). Slightly redundant yet appropriately sized for a six-value output vocabulary.

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?

An output schema exists so return format need not be explained, yet the description supplies the semantic meaning of the six outcome words and the boundary conditions. For a two-parameter, read-only comparison tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 both the wallet address and the require syntax (comma vs pipe, JSON array form). The description only echoes the require example in a URL and does not add format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, matching 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?

States a precise verb and resource: it lays a wallet's titles beside a job's requirements and returns one of six defined words. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like worker_titles (which lists titles) and verify_work, so an agent can route without opening the 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 a clear triggering context (give a wallet plus job/project requirements) and a firm boundary (factual comparison only, never a hiring or qualification decision). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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