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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses auth requirement (agent_key from register_agent), rate limit (PRO = 50/day), and a cost alternative (x402). This goes beyond basic introspection, though it does not describe failure responses or edge cases.

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 compact yet information-dense: each sentence adds new, relevant context (purpose, prerequisites, rate limit, alternative, usage timing, parameter source). No filler words; front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents, auth, rate limiting, cost alternative, and parameter source. It lacks explicit error/return behavior, but given the simple read operation and rich context, it is nearly complete.

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% (both params have descriptions). The description adds value by stating human_id comes from search_humans and that agent_key is obtained from register_agent, reinforcing and enriching the schema meaning.

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 clearly that it retrieves a human's FULL profile with enumerated details (contact info, wallets, payment methods, social links). Distinguishes from siblings like get_human by specifying 'FULL profile' and gives a direct use-case ('Use this before create_job_offer').

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?

Provides explicit use case ('Use this before create_job_offer to see how to pay the human'), notes an alternative ($0.05 via x402), and specifies that human_id comes from search_humans. Does not explicitly list exclusions (e.g., when to use get_human instead), but gives strong contextual guidance.

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