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

The description uses 'Fetch' and 'Call this first,' which imply a read-only, informational operation consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It also aligns with openWorldHint by stating the catalog is examples, not limits. The description adds context about the manifest contents beyond the annotations, providing transparent expectations.

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 the first sentence listing the manifest contents and the second providing a clear usage directive. The open-world note is brief and adds value without bloat. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and then actionable guidance.

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 is complete for its simple, parameterless, read-only nature. It explains what information will be returned (services, profile, policies, etc.), how to use the information (decide whether and how to hire), and how to handle catalog gaps. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently covers expected content.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). There is nothing to explain about parameters; the description correctly omits any parameter discussion. The baseline for high schema coverage applies, and no additional compensation is needed.

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 fetches the Human For AI manifest and enumerates its contents (services, operator profile, response times, task types, trust & safety). It also explicitly says 'Call this first to decide whether and how to hire the human,' which distinguishes its purpose from the sibling tools that submit or check tasks.

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 provides explicit timing guidance: 'Call this first to decide whether and how to hire the human.' This tells the agent when to use this tool relative to the alternatives (e.g., before submit_human_task or message_human_operator). The note that unlisted needs are welcome as custom_human_in_the_loop also clarifies how to handle catalog gaps.

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