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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with a non-read-only, open-world call. But the description adds nothing about the traits that matter most here: whether the call waits on a human, expected latency/timeouts, what a failed or unanswered consultation returns, or what gets recorded as side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean and easy to scan. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from efficient packing of information, which caps the score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, this is a conceptually unusual, five-parameter, human-in-the-loop style tool with 20% schema coverage, and one sentence is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly and interpret the outcome.

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 only 20% — just clone_id is documented, and that is in the schema, not the description. The description explains nothing about question, task_id, decision_id, or media_evidence (five parameters, three required), so with low coverage the description fails to compensate for the missing semantics.

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 gives a verb ('Ask') and resource ('the owner's consciousness') plus a domain of use (intent, plans, important decisions), which distinguishes it from connection_status, disconnect, and review_work. However, 'consult the owner's consciousness' is metaphorical and leaves unclear what actually happens operationally — whether it blocks for a human response, submits a queued request, or returns a decision.

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?

It implies a scope ('important decisions') but never states when to use this versus review_work or when not to consult at all. No prerequisites, no mention of whether it can be called repeatedly, and no routing guidance despite three sibling tools existing.

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