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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the required auth ('product API key') and the failure mode ('consensus_reached: false if validators are unreachable'). It still omits side effects (does this mutate server state?), idempotency, and the shape of a successful return, which matter for a tool named 'run'.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite and return caveat. Tight and readable, though the return sentence could be folded into a single clearer clause.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must do everything, but it leaves taskId semantics, payload contents, and the distinction from veya_client_run_consensus unexplained. The consensus_reached note is a good start but far from sufficient for a tool with a nested payload and required identifiers.

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 0%, and the description only implies apiKey via 'product API key'. It says nothing about taskId (the sole required parameter) or the payload object, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap in a 3-parameter, nested-schema tool.

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 ('Run') and a well-defined resource ('2-of-3 BLAKE3 consensus on this server's validator list'), so an agent knows exactly what the operation does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling veya_client_run_consensus, leaving the agent to guess which consensus variant to call.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Needs a product API key') but no guidance on when to prefer this tool over veya_client_run_consensus or the broader veya_* family. No exclusions, no context conditions, no mention of what taskId represents.

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