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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description usefully adds that nothing is scheduled, dispatched or charged and that a human reviews the request — non-obvious guarantees that go beyond the annotations. It stops short of explaining what the response contains or how review proceeds.

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, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the inquiry-only constraint immediately after. Every clause earns its place.

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 submission tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, a two-sentence description is far too thin: it omits the conversation setup requirement, idempotency semantics, and how the optional fields (objective vs problem_statement, budget) affect acceptance.

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 a heavy burden but contributes nothing about any parameter — not the required conversation_id/client_request_id idempotency flow, nor budget, persona_id, or timing fields. Agents must reverse-engineer intent 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+resource ('Ask willing people to describe...') and enumerates the sensory modalities covered, which maps to a distinct concept. It does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like request_human_observation or request_human_embodiment, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from '(Human Senses)'.

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 'Inquiry only: a human reviews it' clause hints at the intended lightweight, non-committal use, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many request_* siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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