hyre-graduating

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the filter thresholds (70% progress, $0.003) but does not explicitly state that it returns a list, whether results are sorted, or that it is a read-only operation. The behavior is partially inferred but not fully transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential criteria without any wasted words. It is optimally concise for a simple tool.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete, but the meaning of '$0.003' is ambiguous (could be token price or a separate signal value), and the output format is not described. These gaps prevent full completeness.

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, and the baseline for such tools is 4. The description adds meaning by defining the constant thresholds used (70% progress, $0.003), which are not present in the empty schema. This is helpful context.

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 identifies the tool's output as tokens meeting two specific criteria: >70% bonding curve progress and a $0.003 urgency signal. This distinguishes it from siblings like hyre-bonding-curve or hyre-new-tokens, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it returns but does not mention recommended contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like hyre-bonding-curve.

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