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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: sequential discussion, moderator synthesis, auto-mode vs manual mode, and full configurability. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) to explain the actual workflow and side effects, such as the fact that multiple AI models will be invoked in sequence.

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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the core concept ('Consult the AI coding council...'). The final sentence 'Fully configurable...' is somewhat redundant as it repeats parameters already listed, but it is not verbose enough to be a significant issue.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context: it explains the discussion flow, synthesis, auto/manual modes, and configurability. It does not explicitly describe the return value (e.g., a synthesized summary), but the phrase 'a moderator synthesizes' implies the output. Additional details about knowledge injection or webhooks are not mentioned, but those are niche parameters documented in the schema.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely listing parameter names (mode, format, roles, models, thinking level) in the last sentence. It does reference auto-mode and manual override, which maps to the auto_route parameter, but this is already clear from the schema.

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 with a specific verb ('Consult') and resource ('AI coding council'), and explains the process (models discuss sequentially, moderator synthesizes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on multi-model consultation, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 provides clear context for use (engineering questions) and explains the default auto-mode versus manual override. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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