hire_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it states it executes nothing, that it is 'receipted either way,' and gives the exact return vocabulary (ALLOW / MANDATE_ALLOW_PERSON_PENDING / DENY with named reasons). It does not cover auth requirements or what the receipt/receipt_list interaction involves, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the purpose and the check list, with the crucial 'executes nothing' caveat early. The comma-separated checklist is terse but every clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description does supply return values and the no-side-effects caveat. But it leaves the `mandate` object, `as_of`, and the meaning of 'receipted' unexplained, so an agent still has gaps before calling it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the token parameters (person_confirm_token tied to v1 owner-confirm, quote_approval_token tied to the approval threshold 'for THIS quote'), but it never names parameters and leaves `as_of` and the nested `mandate` object undefined.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate a hire against a live Procure/Agent Wallet mandate,' and enumerates the exact checks performed. It is clearly distinct from the brief_*, quote_* and completion_verify siblings, though it does not name which to use instead.

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?

Usage is implied (run this check before selecting or hiring), and it notes 'v1 person-selection always needs an owner-confirm token,' which is a real condition. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to an alternative tool, so the agent must infer the trigger.

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