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

The description is unusually candid about behavior beyond the annotations: synchronous execution, 30–40s latency, high cost, and the persistent side effect of minting a new divergence record on every run. However, that side effect directly conflicts with the annotation readOnlyHint=true, since each call creates durable state; the disclosure is good, but the definition is internally inconsistent about mutability.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, then the cost/usage constraints and the side effect. Every clause carries information an agent needs before spending 30–40 seconds.

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 still characterizes the return (verbatim answers plus named tensions), and it covers latency, cost, and persistence. Nothing material is missing for a one-parameter 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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('phrased as you would to a human expert'). The description reinforces the single-open-question scope but adds no format, length, or phrasing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (summon a live panel of named frontier models on one open question) and specifies the return shape: verbatim, uncurated answers plus named tensions. It also distinguishes itself from omnarai_divergence by framing itself as the source that creates those records.

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?

Explicitly gates usage: 'use only for genuinely contested questions an existing omnarai_divergence record doesn't cover', which names both the condition and the cheaper alternative. Cost and latency caveats (slow ~30–40s, expensive) further tell the agent when not to reach for it.

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