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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the auth model (job token required, and download paths inherit that token), which is genuinely useful. It omits read-only character, return shape, and whether listing itself is token-gated, so gaps remain.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the access constraint. Zero 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 a two-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is listed and the token requirement, but is silent on what the artifacts/hash payload actually looks like and whether the list is paginated, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description mentions the job token and implies the job via 'secured human job', but adds no format, source, or constraints beyond the schema's own field names, leaving the UUID and minLength requirements undocumented.

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 (List) and resource (evidence artifacts / SHA-256 hashes) scoped to a secured human job, so an agent can tell it apart from human_get_job or human_list_expenses. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by tying the tool to 'a secured human job' and stating that download paths require the same job token, which signals this is the pre-download enumeration step. It gives no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives.

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