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

The annotations already signal a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent, open-world operation; the description's real contribution is assuring that submitting this contacts/assigns/pays no one and is metadata-only – valuable for an agent wary of an open-world side effect. It stops short of describing the review lifecycle or what a submission returns/confirms.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the crucial inquiry-only caveat. Nothing is wasted and the critical framing arrives before any detail.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and open-world reach, the description establishes scope and non-commitment but omits what the call returns (request id, status) and how the idempotency key interacts with retries. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete for an agent reasoning about outcomes.

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 38% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter-level guidance at all – not even for required fields like persona_id or the client_request_id idempotency key. Six of eight parameters do carry schema descriptions, but the description itself does not compensate for the documented low 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 description uses a specific verb and resource ("Submit an original voice or appearance brief") and scopes it clearly ("for human review (metadata only)"). An agent can immediately tell what this tool does, though it never contrasts with near-miss siblings such as request_human_embodiment or request_human_representative, which a 5 would require.

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 and the "Inquiry only: no person is contacted, assigned, agreed or paid" clause make the intended usage boundaries clear (submission for review, not a commitment). However, there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this over the many request_human_* siblings or what a caller should expect to do next.

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