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

Annotations indicate a non-read, non-idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral details: bounty system, payment flow, location requirement, and owner-gating. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention expiration or failed task handling.

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?

The description is a single paragraph of four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and includes necessary details without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be broken into clearer sections.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the workflow and bounty mechanism well. It explains key concepts like proof and payment. Missing details include return value (e.g., task ID) and behavior on expiration, but overall it's sufficient.

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%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by explaining the currency conversion (1000▲ = $1) and example values for proof_required and location, but does not significantly augment the schema descriptions.

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 posts a task for a human in the physical world, specifying task types (errand, photos, etc.) and that it's a bounty. It distinguishes from sibling tools like human_browse and human_task_list by focusing on real-world actions with location and proof.

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 explains when to use (need human for physical task) and provides context on payment and process (nothing staked at post, owner-gated, proof required). It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions but the purpose is clear enough.

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