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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing cost ('free') and the shape of the response even though no output schema exists. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the read-only/free framing and the return contents are front-loaded before the routing advice. 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?

With no output schema, the description helpfully summarizes what comes back (capability group, example brief, needed fields) and covers the free/optional/safe posture. The unresolved gap is parameter meaning for goal and the visit_reason enum, which is meaningful for a 3-param 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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It implies the mapping of 'what you are trying to get done' to need and 'why you came' to visit_reason, but never explains the distinction between goal and need, nor any of the visit_reason enum values. Partial compensation only.

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 a specific action and payload: describe a goal and receive the closest capability group, an example brief, and required fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_human_task and positioning itself as the pre-search triage step. It does not fully contrast with get_taskin_capabilities, which sounds adjacent.

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?

Explicitly marks itself as optional and free to call, and gives a concrete triggering condition ('before search_human_task when you are unsure whether a person is needed'). No when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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