agdp_hire_agent

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

Annotations already disclose destructive/open-world behavior, but the description adds valuable context: 'requires wallet and confirmation,' which is a significant behavioral trait beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations. However, it does not detail side effects or costs, though the added context is strong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and no redundant information. The pointer to acp_create_job is concise and valuable, making every word earn 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?

The description provides purpose, prerequisites, and an alternative, which is sufficient for a write operation with no output schema. It does not explain the return value or the structure of serviceRequirements, but those are not fully expected given the schema and sibling context. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Agent ID to hire' and 'Service requirements'), so baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, and the schema descriptions are minimal, especially for serviceRequirements, which lacks structural detail. Still, the schema does carry the basic semantics.

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?

Clearly specifies the action (hire), the resource (AI agent), and the source (aGDP marketplace), with the verb 'hire' providing a specific operation. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by noting the alternative for on-chain job creation via acp_create_job, which helps differentiate this tool from related ones.

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?

Explicitly states an alternative: 'For on-chain job creation, use acp_create_job separately.' This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance. It also mentions prerequisites (wallet and confirmation), indicating the context under which this tool should be invoked.

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