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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description usefully adds that a human reviews the submission and that no scheduling, dispatch or charge occurs, which correctly frames the write as a review request rather than an action. It omits rate limits, the conversation claim/auth requirement, and what the agent should expect back after submission.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the two key constraints. 'Feasibility review only. Inquiry only' is slightly redundant but each clause adds a distinct boundary, so there is little 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 a 22-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description explains only the concept and non-effects. It says nothing about the required conversation context/token flow, the idempotency behavior the agent must respect, or what a successful submission yields, leaving large gaps the schema only partially fills.

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?

With 22 parameters and only 14% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of clarifying inputs but mentions none of them — not the required conversation_id/client_request_id, not the objective vs problem_statement alternative, not the dual budget encodings. An agent must reverse-engineer the entire payload from the schema alone.

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 ('ask whether a nonhazardous physical test or prototype is feasible') and scopes it to Human Laboratory feasibility review, which separates it from siblings like request_human_observation or request_human_capability. It stops short of naming an alternative directly, but the domain and 'feasibility review only' qualifier make the target 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?

'Feasibility review only. Inquiry only' plus 'nothing is scheduled, dispatched or charged' gives a clear selection context and an explicit exclusion of execution outcomes. It does not name a sibling tool to use instead when the agent actually wants a capability or a booking, so routing between the request_* family is still left to inference.

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