delegate

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantive behavior beyond that: defaults for title/body, match default true, durable wake arming when empty, the return payload (intent, packet, candidates, next steps), and the guarantee that it never invents outcomes. It does not discuss rate limits or auth, but the added behavioral 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?

The description is dense but front-loaded: it opens with the core action, then covers defaults, behavior, return shape, and routing. It is longer than a single sentence but every clause carries functional detail; punctuation is heavy but readable.

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 12-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the durable/match behaviors. It does not explain the failurePolicy outcomes or maxSteps/maxTicks semantics, so it is not fully complete, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly with schema help.

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%, so each parameter is already well documented, including enums, defaults, and nesting. The description reinforces a few defaults (title/body from skills/summary, match true, durable true) but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states a verb and resource: it posts a Looking intent and offers a linked Handoff, naming the key fields lookingId, skills, summary, nextIntent. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming find_agent and handoff offer as the separate path it replaces when the job is known.

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 final sentence gives explicit routing guidance: prefer this over separate find_agent + handoff offer when you already know the job. It further specifies how work and prove stages behave, making the when-to-use context concrete.

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