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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses real behavioral traits: results are bounded fixed-scope/fixed-price outcomes rather than freelancers, and on a miss 'the need is recorded as demand signal and nothing is purchased' — telling the agent no side-effect purchase occurs. This is meaningful context that the readOnlyHint=false annotation alone does not convey.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger before the mechanics. Dense but every clause carries information; minor nesting of clauses slightly reduces scanability.

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 6-param lookup with no output schema, it covers what comes back (matching Human Functions plus the quoting tool) and the failure path (demand-signal recording, no purchase). Return-value detail is thin, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with examples. The description adds only the framing 'Describe the outcome you need,' which maps loosely to the objective field but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (find) and resource (qualified human outcome / Human Function) and immediately clarifies what a Human Function is: 'bounded outcomes with fixed scope and price, not freelancers.' It also names its downstream sibling ('the tool to quote one'), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening any schema.

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 opening clause gives an explicit trigger condition — use when a step 'should be completed or verified by a qualified human professional' — with concrete examples (attorney review, sign-off, physical presence). It lacks an explicit exclusion vs. siblings like request_execution or check_saas_legal_review, but the trigger context is unambiguous.

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