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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint (true), destructiveHint (false), and readOnlyHint (false). The description adds that it is 'Owner-gated' (auth requirement) and 'idempotent upsert' (behavior). This adds useful context beyond the annotations, but does not contradict them.

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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose and key fields, the second adds important guidance about the alternative web form. Every sentence 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?

The description covers purpose, auth, idempotency, and usage guidance. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (response/confirmation), which would be helpful given no output schema. Otherwise, it is well-rounded for a write tool with good annotations.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description lists some parameters (display_name, skills, city/country, etc.) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Grouping 'city/country' is a minor improvement, but baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'List yourself (or your operator) as a hireable HUMAN worker in the directory.' It lists specific fields (display_name, skills, etc.) and differentiates from the web form alternative, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 description explicitly says 'Owner-gated' (only for the profile owner) and 'Humans usually join via the web form at /humans/join instead,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative. It also indicates the tool is idempotent and an upsert.

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