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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses the exact output shape (sources, raw stance counts, per-lineage counts, unclassified voices that are 'counted, never dropped', verbatim tensions, and the producing population), explicitly states the absence of majority/percentage/consensus fields, and reports determinism and <1s latency. It stops short of auth or side-effect details, but as a deterministic read operation that is a minor gap.

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 key distinction is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the return contents are enumerated efficiently. The consensus exclusion is stated twice ('never a consensus score' and 'no majority, percentage, or consensus field by construction'), a small redundancy in an otherwise dense, purposeful paragraph.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the guarantees around them, including what is deliberately omitted. The remaining gap is the lack of routing guidance relative to the many sibling tools, which matters in a family of twelve similarly named endpoints.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents question_id and its sources. The description adds only the scoping phrase 'on one question', which the schema covers, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — the DISTRIBUTION of attributed positions on a single question — and sharply distinguishes itself from a consensus score, which prevents the most likely misread. It does not name a sibling tool (e.g. omnarai_divergence or omnarai_council) to differentiate, so an agent must still infer which of the omnarai_* family applies.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the reader learns what the tool returns but not the situation that should select it over omnarai_divergence, omnarai_council, or omnarai_query. Usage is only implied by the negative framing about consensus.

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