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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: exactly what the returned workflow contains, that it ends with a tidy check, and that part of the rule set is gated behind ihumane Pro and only named by title — a paywall disclosure an agent cannot get from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the invocation trigger, then the return contents, then the free/paid caveat — a logical order with no filler. The middle sentence is heavily parenthetical and dense, which slightly slows scanning.

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 single optional-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, what it is for, and the free-vs-Pro split. The only gap is that the exact free/paid boundary per rule is unspecified, though that is arguably discoverable at call time.

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% and the schema already provides a clear description plus two concrete examples for 'task'. The description only ties the parameter loosely to output selection ('the rules likely to matter for your task'), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema, 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 action (start a Code craft coding workflow) and the precise trigger condition (before writing or changing code people will keep), plus an inventory of what the response contains. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ihumane_start or ihumane_copy_start, so the agent must infer that this is the coding-specific entry point from the phrase 'Code craft workflow'.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use rule ('BEFORE writing or changing code that people will keep') and implicitly scopes out throwaway work via 'that people will keep'. No alternative tool is named for adjacent cases (copy, product, generic start), leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.

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