search_humans

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the search functionality, filtering options, and return data, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The mention of 'requires registered agent' for get_human_profile hints at access controls but doesn't fully cover this tool's behavioral traits.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose, filtering, and returns; the second provides important alternative tool guidance. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse while maintaining completeness.

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 search tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about filtering scope and return data. However, it doesn't explain the response format (e.g., pagination structure, field details) or error handling. The guidance about get_human_profile partially compensates, but some behavioral aspects remain undocumented.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the structured schema. The description adds value by summarizing filtering capabilities ('skill, equipment, language, location, rate') and clarifying location options ('text or coordinates'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers.

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 ('Search for humans available for hire') and resource ('humans'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_human' (singular retrieval) and 'get_human_profile' (detailed profile). It specifies the search context ('available for hire') and return content ('profiles with reputation stats'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides when-to-use guidance by naming an alternative tool ('Contact info and wallets available via get_human_profile') and specifying a prerequisite ('requires registered agent'). It also implies usage context through filtering capabilities and return data, helping differentiate from other human-related tools like 'create_job_offer' or 'get_listings'.

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