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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses typical response time (within 30 minutes), the nature of the response (direct human answer, no scoring/verdict/certificate), and return fields (answer plus optional note on respondent). This covers essential behavioral traits without contradictory information.

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 concise with three purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the core action, the second advises on usage, and the third clarifies boundaries and return value. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one string parameter, no nested objects, and an existing output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral expectations, and return content. There are no evident gaps, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 is simple (one parameter 'question' with 100% description coverage). The tool description adds context about 'plain-text' and 'quick human take', but the schema already describes the parameter adequately. As schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description adds marginal value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: asking a vetted human a plain-text question and receiving an answer. It specifies the use case (quick human take, gut check, local/lived-experience) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting no scoring, verdict, or certificate, which sets it apart from other human-related tools like arbitrate_dispute or verify_certificate.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, such as needing a quick human take or gut check. It implicitly indicates when not to use it by excluding formal outputs, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for exclusion. The sibling list includes many tools, and a direct comparison would be beneficial, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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