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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does real work: it discloses that the calls are UNSIGNED, that nothing is signed or sent server-side, and that the api_key must match the one that opened the handshake. It omits response shape and any auth/rate-limit detail, but the key behavioral trait (a non-submitting, offer-constructing tool) is clearly surfaced.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action leads, then the signing caveat, then parameter detail. The em-dash clauses make it slightly run-on, but almost every phrase earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and a nested body object, the description covers purpose, the unsigned/signing responsibility, and both parameters' meaning. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the returned identifier/response is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it documents that body is the /v1/jobs request body with an inline example of its fields (chainId, seller, price_usdc, class, handshake_id) and explains api_key's role. That is meaningful semantics well beyond the bare 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 ('Create an offer for a chosen seller') and even maps it to the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/jobs). It is unambiguous what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the crowded set of hire siblings (taifoon_hire_assemble, taifoon_hire_attach, taifoon_hire_suggest, etc.).

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 when this belongs in the flow ('nothing is signed or sent here', hirer signs later), giving an agent a sense of it being a preparation step. However, it names no alternative sibling and states no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions, leaving usage to inference.

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