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

The description reveals key behavioral traits: it creates a web form, returns form_url and action_id, requires no API key/account/signup for creating the form, and expires after 24 hours. Since no annotation metadata is provided, the description carries this burden well, though it stops short of mentioning other edge cases such as rate limits or fallback behavior if no response is received.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. Each sentence contributes distinct value: purpose, returned values, when-to-use, a unique benefit, authentication details, follow-up step, and expiry limitation. There is no redundant 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?

The description provides the complete calling context: what the tool creates, how to distribute the form, how to retrieved the result via read_human_approval, and the time expiration limits. It also specifies that the approver needs no account or login, which helps the agent understand the full flow even without an output schema.

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 already documents all four parameters (title, options, allow_note, description) with thorough descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but it adds value in explaining the flow (title for the question, options as button labels, etc.). This matches the baseline for a schema with high coverage.

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 opening sentence clearly describes the tool's action: putting a decision in front of a real person and waiting for their answer. It then specifies the concrete artifacts produced (form_url, action_id) and differentiates from the read_human_approval sibling, noting the approval may be from someone other than the person operating the client.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use care to get sign-off before an irreversible or costly step, or when a policy requires a named human to approve') and when not to use it ('the form expires 24 hours after creation, so it does not suit a decision that can wait longer than that'). It also directs the agent to poll for the reply with read_human_approval, providing a clear workflow.

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