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

With openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: despite being an open-world request, it is an inquiry only with no person contacted, assigned, agreed, or paid. It does not explain what record is created or how the request progresses, but the key safety boundary is disclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded and the inquiry-only caveat follows immediately where it matters most.

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 15-parameter, open-world inquiry tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the description covers the purpose and the no-commitment boundary but omits what the request creates, how status is checked, and how the many optional fields shape the request. Adequate but with clear 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 only 20% across 15 parameters, so the description needs to compensate but largely does not. It echoes the role_type enum values and implies persona_id and nonbinding budget semantics, but leaves account_token, conversation_id, context/disclosure rules, client_request_id idempotency, and the various free-text scope fields unexplained.

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 for a consenting human performer to portray your persona') and enumerates the three role types matching the role_type enum. It is clearly distinguishable from capability/dialogue/observation siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from close siblings like request_human_representative or request_preferred_representative.

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 parenthetical (fictional performance, voice acting, event presence) gives clear context for when this request applies, and 'Inquiry only: no person is contacted, assigned, agreed or paid' sets an important usage boundary. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly stating when not to use it versus other request_human_* tools.

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