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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the multi-perspective evaluation process and the pros-cons output format, without contradicting any annotation.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and uses a concise metaphor. Every word adds value, and it is perfectly sized for quick understanding.

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 tool's moderate complexity and full schema descriptions, the description adequately covers the purpose, evaluation angles, and output format. It could slightly expand on how the council metaphor applies in practice, but it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the description does not need to explain individual parameters. The description mentions 'options' and 'pros-cons' but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 purpose: assessing tradeoffs using a council of three evaluators (Pragmatist, Skeptic, Futurist) and outputting pros and cons. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'consult-council' by focusing on tradeoff analysis.

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 usage is implied: evaluate options from different angles. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'consult-council' or 'plan-implementation', nor does it provide exclusions or alternative guidance.

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