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

Annotations already signal destructiveness and non-read-only behavior, and the description adds valuable specifics: it creates an escrow, funds it on-chain in USDC, executes the task, and returns the result. This reveals real monetary movement and a compound workflow beyond the structured hints. It does not mention failure or refund behavior, so it is 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?

Three dense sentences: the core action, the step-by-step workflow, and the target use case. The main verb is front-loaded and every clause adds information without repetition or padding.

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?

This is a complex financial mutation tool, but the description covers the full call flow and the output schema covers return values; annotations cover destructive/read-only hints. The main missing piece is explicit prerequisites, such as having a registered agent or escrow balance, which are only implied by the sibling tools like register and onboard_start.

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 already has a clear description. The tool description only loosely reinforces parameter roles ('Searches by capability' and 'funds ... USDC'), adding no significant meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Hire an agent from the marketplace to execute a task.' It then enumerates the full pipeline—search by capability, create escrow, fund in USDC, execute, and return—so an agent knows exactly what this tool does. The 'one-call bridge' phrasing distinguishes it from the granular marketplace siblings like data_session_fund and discover_agents.

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?

'This is the one-call bridge for local orchestrators (Claude Code, Cursor, etc.) to use the marketplace' gives a clear target scenario. It implies the alternative is the multi-step data_session_* flow, but it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool names, so it stops short of a 5.

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