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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about the multi-persona evaluation ('Systems Architect, Infrastructure Engineer, DX Advocate'), the use of 'high thinking for maximum depth,' and the ADR output format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like the webhook POST behavior, which is relevant given the 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 concise, with four short sentences each adding distinct information: the council concept, the evaluating roles, the high-thinking behavior, and the ADR output. It is front-loaded with purpose, though 'Always uses high thinking for maximum depth' is slightly marketing-driven and could be trimmed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately mentions 'Output as ADR,' but it lacks further detail about the ADR structure or the evaluation process. It also does not mention the webhook_url parameter's behavior (posting results), which is a notable gap. Overall, it is minimally complete but misses some 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?

The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 is an 'Architecture design council' where three expert roles evaluate a system design, with output as an ADR. This conveys a specific verb (evaluate) and resource (system design), though it could more explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'consult-council' or 'assess-tradeoffs'.

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 use when you have a system design to be evaluated by an architecture council, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides no comparative guidance against sibling tools.

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