find_humans

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return fields (skills, rate floor, rating, completed job count), which is useful. However it omits safety profile (is this read-only?), pagination/ordering, and what happens with no query. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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?

Front-loaded verb, then a compressed enumeration of qualifying conditions, then return fields. Two dense sentences. Some list items ('a human judgement call') are slightly softened by 'or' phrasing, but no fat.

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?

Covers purpose and return fields, but with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell whether this is read-only, how results are ordered, or what to do when it finds no match. Adequate but leaves gaps for an unannotated discovery 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, limit, skills, max_budget, and min_rating. The description adds return-field context ('rate floor') but does not explain parameter interactions or the semantics of free-text q. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource ('Find real people available for hire') and enumerates the use cases (physical presence, legal signature, local knowledge, etc.) that distinguish it from generic search. It does not directly name or contrast with the sibling hire_human or post_job, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implies when to use it via the enumeration of tasks 'an AI cannot finish alone', but never says when NOT to use it or which sibling (post_job, hire_human) handles the next step. No explicit routing guidance.

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