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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — independent agents with disagreement surfaced rather than averaged — which tells the agent the result is a distribution, not a consensus single answer. However, it says nothing about latency, cost, whether the call blocks, idempotency, or whether a panel is expensive to invoke, all of which matter for a fan-out consultation tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the usage condition. Each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does enough to convey the conceptual return value (degree of agreement, raw disagreement). It does not spell out the response shape or the two-phase qid/answer protocol in prose, but the schema carries the parameter mechanics and the description carries the semantic intent.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented, and the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies. The description's mention of 'before committing to an answer' loosely motivates the qid/answer round-trip, but the mechanics remain schema-only.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Ask a question' to an agent panel) and uniquely characterizes the output as an agreement measure rather than a single answer. This is clearly distinguishable from every sibling tool (watchdog, webhook, checkpoint, etc.), none of which involve multi-agent consultation.

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 second sentence provides a concrete when-to-use condition: checking your own reasoning against other agents before committing to an answer. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but no sibling tool is a plausible substitute, so the guidance is effectively complete for this toolset.

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