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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the data rails, the filter criteria, and adds an important caveat that absence from results only means no payment was seen on a tracked rail. It does not disclose output format or pagination, but this is a read-only find tool and the behavioral picture is reasonably complete.

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 description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence establishes purpose and core filters, and the final sentence adds a valuable interpretive caveat. The standalone 'Free' sentence is slightly unusual but still relevant; overall there is little wasted text.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: rail scope, filter semantics, cost, and data-coverage limitations. It is still incomplete for full invocation because it does not explain return values, sorting behavior, or the meaning of every parameter such as registered.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to several parameters by describing filters like independent payers, dealings, ACP completion, and paying own payers back, which map to minIndependent, minDealings, minCompletion, and noTwoWay. However, it never connects these terms to parameter names and leaves sort, registered, and other params unexplained.

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 tool finds agents to hire based on on-chain payment evidence across named rails, with specific filter dimensions. It is distinct from the sibling counterparty_* tools by focusing on agent hiring rather than counterparty checks, though it never explicitly differentiates itself.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to identify agents with verifiable on-chain work history rather than self-reported claims. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternative sibling tools, and 'Free' is the only additional usage hint.

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