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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it runs simultaneous analysis by five domains, returns distinct framings plus cross-domain consensus and dominant domain, and states that no two domains agree. It also mentions rate limits and the optional email param for higher limits. This is comprehensive for a stateless, non-destructive 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?

The description is dense but well-organized, front-loading the call format and required param. It covers example, domains, output, usage guidance, and limitations in a compact paragraph. Every sentence adds value, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains input (goal format, constraints), behavior (5-domain debate, no consensus among domains), output (5 framings + consensus + dominant domain), usage guidance, and rate limits. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, but the description adds significant value: it emphasizes the exact required parameter name 'goal' (not topic or question), provides an example, specifies minimum length (10 chars), and explains the optional email parameter's purpose (Zambo Pass for higher limits). This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: runs a 5-domain strategic debate on a given goal. It provides a clear call format, required parameter, and output summary, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It is well-differentiated from the extensive sibling list by its unique multi-domain debate capability.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'exploring a hard strategic decision, diagnosing why a plan keeps failing, or before committing to a major direction.' It also notes rate limits (3 free debates/day, unlimited with Zambo Pass). While it lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, the provided guidance is clear and actionable.

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