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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the node is measured per pass (fresh arithmetic battery), pricing is live GPU unit-hour pro-rated to measured seconds, an evidence digest keccak256(request||response) is produced, settlement is UNSIGNED assurance calls (fund-job → submit → complete), and that 'you sign'. That is rich behavioral context — auth/signing, side effects, pricing — though it omits failure handling and reversibility.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the opening is one very long, jargon-dense 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?

For a 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description conveys the operational flow, pricing model, settlement steps, and signing requirement, which is close to complete. Minor gaps remain around return payload and error behavior, but the core is covered.

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 all five parameters are already documented; the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates schema content (hirer records intent in the Grid ledger) and adds only the prompt-absent listing behavior, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 ('One AI call against a node the gateway has MEASURED for that model') with concrete scope — measured nodes, GPU-priced, on-chain settlement. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names a sibling (e.g. taifoon_assurance_call or taifoon_grid_hire) to distinguish it from the many other call/hire tools.

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?

It implies usage through 'Give `hirer` to record the intent' and the fallback 'Without a prompt it lists the measured nodes and the rate', which is a useful mode switch. But there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance or prerequisites for choosing it over sibling hiring tools.

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