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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only behavior, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail about the result ('step-by-step analysis with confidence score and recommendations'). It does not disclose cost or non-determinism, but pricing is encoded in the reasoning_depth parameter schema, so the description offers adequate additional context beyond annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys both the action and the expected result. No unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks an output schema and only vaguely specifies the response format. It does not explain how to choose reasoning_depth or how this tool relates to its siblings. For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps in actionable context.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond aligning with the 'question' parameter and implying the reasoning process; it offers no extra detail on did, domain, context, or reasoning_depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Submit a question or problem') and resource, and specifies the output ('Returns step-by-step analysis with confidence score and recommendations'). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like hiveconsult_decide or hiveconsult_review, so it misses full distinction.

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 implies usage for questions or problems requiring structured reasoning, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as analyze, decide, or review. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers, leaving the agent to infer suitability from the purpose alone.

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