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

Beyond the annotations (which indicate a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation), the description adds key behavioral traits: low-friction access, rate limit of 5/min, polling via handoff_id, optional callback, and auto-expiry via ttl_seconds. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is dense with examples. It front-loads the core idea ('Stuck at a human-only wall?') and provides necessary details efficiently.

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 the lack of output schema, the description explains the return value (handoff_id) and mentions polling, inbox notification, and optional callback. It covers rate limits and auto-expiry. While it doesn't detail polling mechanics or exact response format, it is fairly complete for a 7-parameter tool.

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 high (86%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for parameters like 'task' (what's blocked), 'url' (wall URL), 'context' (operator info), and 'callback_url' (webhook on resolve). It does not detail every parameter beyond what the schema provides, but the added context is helpful.

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 purpose: requesting a human operator to resolve human-only barriers like CAPTCHA, OAuth login, or email/SMS verification. It uses specific verbs ('park it'), lists concrete examples, and distinguishes it from automated alternatives like browse_solve_challenge.

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 tells when to use the tool ('stuck at a human-only wall') and provides examples. It also mentions low-friction usage for unregistered handles. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where automated tools might be better, though the context suggests it's for cases automation cannot handle.

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