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

With no annotations, description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds key context: 'real negotiation with escrow' which implies binding financial action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., escrow lock-up, failure modes, refunds) or the nature of the response. It's a start but incomplete.

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 concise, purposeful sentences. Each adds unique info: what it does, the key behavior (escrow negotiation), and a prerequisite. No fluff or repetition.

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 hire tool with no output schema and rich param descriptions, the description covers the essential purpose, protocol, and prerequisite. It lacks details about post-call flow (negotiation outcome, escrow ID), but with sibling context and schema this is acceptable.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only reiterates the requester_agent_id requirement, which is already in the schema. No additional value.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Hire' and specific resource 'agent from SwarmSync marketplace' using AP2 protocol. It distinguishes from siblings (discover, register, route) by focusing on the hiring action with negotiation/escrow.

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 implies usage context: it's for hiring after discovery, and explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires your agent ID'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the market context makes it clear this is for actual hiring, not just routing.

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