hire_human

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that budget is moved into escrow immediately but only paid out on release, which pairs with the sibling release_payment, and warns that the counterparty is told an AI commissioned the work. It doesn't state auth requirements, cancellation/refund behavior, or what happens if no one delivers.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, financial mechanics, prerequisite, and disclosure to the worker. Front-loaded with the core action and no filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns (money commitment, escrow release, worker disclosure, discovery step). It stops short of describing what the call returns (e.g., a job ID) or what happens to escrowed funds on failure, which an agent might want.

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 coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema with useful examples. The description adds escrow meaning for budget/from but no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (hire) and resource (a specific person to do a piece of work), immediately distinguishing it from find_humans and from post_job, which would be used when no specific person is chosen. An agent can tell what it does from the first sentence alone.

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 names the prerequisite alternative ('Find someone with find_humans first'), which directs the agent to the right upstream tool. It does not explicitly contrast with post_job for open-market listings, but 'a specific person' implicitly signals the difference.

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