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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: 'unknown phases mean pending' resolves ambiguity in the return payload, and next_poll_after_seconds establishes a minimum re-poll interval that prevents hammering the API.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the return-shape summary then the detail, with zero filler. The dense phase enumeration and return fields are all load-bearing for an agent parsing the response.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly — every phase value, the quote contents, job status, result, and poll interval are named. Combined with a fully documented 2-param schema, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 request_id and access_token are already fully documented with patterns and provenance. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format; baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ('Returns the current state of an HumanFn request') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (phase, quote, job status, result, poll interval). It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like confirm_execution or accept_human_function_offer, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention of next_poll_after_seconds signals this is a polling tool, and the phase vocabulary hints at state-machine steps. But there is no explicit 'use this when X, use sibling Y when Z' guidance or precondition statement.

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