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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns treasury address, plans, and endpoints, which gives a sense of output structure. However, it does not clarify whether this is a purely informational read (likely) or if any on-chain interactions occur, nor does it describe side effects or prerequisites. It adds some value beyond the name but lacks depth.

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 two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and then lists the key return values. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool is a how-to guide with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (treasury address, plans, endpoints) and hints at the flow (payment + activation). It doesn't specify the full format or step-by-step nature, but for a reference guide this is likely sufficient. The lack of an output schema means the description should do more, but it does provide a reasonable overview.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps since there are none. The description optionally adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate; it doesn't mislead or create confusion around inputs.

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's purpose: providing instructions on hiring an autonomous agent on X1 with XNT, including the payment and activation flow. It is specific about the resource and what it returns (treasury address, plans, endpoints). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling how-to tools like graviton_how_to_bet, it is unambiguous enough to distinguish 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 phrase 'How to actually hire an autonomous agent' implies use when a user or agent wants to hire, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rental_agents, rental_plans, or other how-to guides). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, leaving some ambiguity.

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