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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that HumanEndpoint reviews feasibility, returns explicit commercial terms, and that the initial response is pending_review with a quote_token that must be polled. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether requesting a quote incurs any charge.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds useful information about inputs or lifecycle. It avoids repetition and waste.

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 an 8-parameter mutation/request tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the review-and-poll lifecycle and the custom service fallback. It is incomplete on half the parameters and does not explain the commercial terms object in enough detail, so an agent would still have 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% and there are 8 parameters, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It clarifies service_slug with the custom-human-task fallback and loosely maps objective, deliverables, and constraints, but says nothing about requester, deadline_at, max_budget_usdc, or max_expenses_usdc.

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: request a priced human-only capability outcome, and it explains that HumanEndpoint reviews feasibility. It distinguishes the request step from the later polling for a quote, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as human_get_quote or human_list_services.

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?

It provides some conditional guidance: use service_slug=custom-human-task when no named service matches. It also says to poll until the quote is offered or declined. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like human_get_quote or human_policy_preflight, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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