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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that keys are ephemeral (never stored, garbage collected) and describes the agent's Socratic nature. It does not detail side effects, but as a consult agent, read-only behavior is implied. The transparency is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a bullet list for specializations and a separate paragraph for BYOK. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema and a clear purpose statement, the description covers the essential context. It misses explicit guidance on when to choose this agent over siblings and does not mention rate limits or error scenarios, but these are minor given the output schema and the straightforward nature of a consultation 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 75%, so the schema documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the BYOK mechanism, including provider auto-detection and ephemerality, which clarifies the llm_provider and api_key parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 'Consult CS Security agent for security validation and Socratic interrogation' and lists specific specializations. The resource (CS Security agent) and action (consult, interrogate) are precise, and the scope differs from sibling agents like consult_agent_x and consult_agent_z.

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?

Provides clear context on the intended use (security validation, Socratic questioning) and the BYOK usage, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this vs. other agents or mention alternatives. The context is clear, but exclusions are missing.

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