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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the session is asynchronous (returns IDs immediately, results later), that a free revision is included, and that the deliverable can be retrieved via a wallet address. While it doesn't mention cost or failure modes, it provides substantial behavioral context beyond the bare function.

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 efficient and well-structured. It opens with the core action, explains the key returns, and then provides follow-on guidance for polling and revisions. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff or repetition.

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 complexity of an ordering tool for a human expert session, the description covers the key workflow: initiation, immediate confirmation, asynchronous completion, and revision. The presence of an output schema likely covers return detail, so the description doesn't need to. Minor gaps like pricing or cancellation are not addressed, but the overall context is solid.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds little extra semantic value for parameters (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on mediaUrls or requestedDeliverables beyond what the schema states). This aligns with the baseline of 3 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Convene a think tank'), describes the resource (a curated team of human experts), and specifies the 30-minute working session scope. It also distinguishes this from the 60-minute sibling tool by explicitly mentioning '30-minute working session'.

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 clear usage context by explaining the immediate returns (sessionId + referenceCode), how to poll for results using get_result, and how to request revisions using request_think_tank_revision. However, it does not explicitly compare with the 60-minute variant or state when one should choose 30 over 60, so it stops short of explicit exclusions.

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