get_human

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 describes what information is returned (bio, skills, service offerings) and what is not (contact info, wallets, social links), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format, leaving gaps for a tool with no 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a crucial usage guideline. Every word earns its place—no fluff, no repetition, and it efficiently communicates both what the tool does and when to use it.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and the description's clear purpose and usage guidelines, it is largely complete. However, the lack of annotations means some behavioral aspects (e.g., auth, errors) are undocumented, and without an output schema, the return format is unspecified, leaving minor gaps.

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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that the ID is for a 'human' and that the tool returns detailed information about that human. With 100% schema description coverage (the schema already documents the ID parameter well), the baseline is 3, but the description provides additional semantic value about what the parameter represents and what data it unlocks.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information'), target resource ('a specific human by their ID'), and scope ('including their bio, skills, and service offerings'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with get_human_profile for contact info, wallets, and social links.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: use get_human for bio/skills/service offerings, and use get_human_profile for contact info/wallets/social links (with the additional constraint that get_human_profile requires a registered agent). This directly addresses sibling differentiation.

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