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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the human is 'vetted', typical response time ('usually within 30 minutes'), scope boundaries ('No scoring, no verdict, no certificate'), and return format ('Returns the human's answer, plus an optional note on who answered'). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and exclusions/return info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameter, output schema exists) and the annotations-free context, the description covers purpose, usage, turnaround, exclusions, and return format. It lacks minor details like cost or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a quick Q&A tool, leaving it nearly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds 'plain-text' and 'vetted human' context that aligns with the schema's 'plain-text question' description, but does not add new semantic constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Thus, it remains at the baseline.

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 function: 'Ask a vetted human a plain-text question and get a plain-text answer back.' It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('vetted human'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting what it does not do ('No scoring, no verdict, no 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Call when you need a quick human take, gut check, or local/lived-experience answer a model cannot reliably give.' It also provides exclusion criteria ('No scoring, no verdict, no certificate'), making it clear when not to use this tool, even without naming specific alternatives.

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