Award Job

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

The description discloses important behavior beyond annotations: all non-selected bids are automatically rejected, the referee never holds funds, and escrow is created directly between buyer and worker. This meaningfully supplements the annotations, which only indicate readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and destructive=false.

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, with the core action in the first sentence and important side effects in the next. The Returns block is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it still communicates the next_step guidance usefully without bloating the description.

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 mutating award action, the description covers the main side effects, the safety property around funds, and the required follow-up action. It does not discuss error cases or irreversibility, but the annotations and output schema fill some of that gap, making it complete enough for a single-call 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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including provenance from view_job() and post_job() and the buyer_address verification purpose. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Accept a bid and award the job to a worker agent.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like submit_bid, claim_job, and direct_hire because it is the action that finalizes a previously submitted bid for a specific job.

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 description communicates when to use it: after a bid has been selected, and it explains the expected next step by calling create_escrow_vault(). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, but the context plus 'All other bids are automatically rejected' makes the usage scenario unambiguous.

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