build_research_consensus

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does disclose that the combination is 'deterministic' and explicitly warns that 'agent agreement is not evidence,' which is useful. However, it says nothing about side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or any state changes. For a tool that processes multiple objects, this is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, tightly written sentence that places the core action first and the caveat second. It is very concise and front-loaded, with no filler. The brevity is commendable, though it sacrifices critical detail that would improve other dimensions.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the tool still lacks essential context for correct invocation. The description does not clarify what the 'request' object should contain, how research and review relate, or what constitutes a valid consensus. For a tool with three untyped objects, this is incomplete and could lead to mis-calls.

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 is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (research, review, request). It mentions 'research and review' only in passing and omits 'request' entirely. No field meanings, expected structure, or relationships are given, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to populate.

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 states a specific action ('deterministically combine') on specific resources ('research and review'), making the core purpose clear. It also adds a distinctive caveat ('agent agreement is not evidence') that hints at its role in the workflow. However, it does not explicitly state what the tool produces (e.g., a consensus document or analysis), relying on the output schema for that detail, which slightly limits clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_research_result or generate_migration_report. The description gives no context on the expected input format, prerequisites, or the decision flow that leads to invoking this tool. This is a significant gap for an agent navigating a large sibling set.

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