Build Research Consensus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only reveals that the combination is deterministic and that agent agreement is not treated as evidence. It does not disclose side effects, required permissions, return behavior, or what 'combine' produces beyond the name.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the core operation, and the warning is packed into a short second clause. It is not bloated, though the brevity leaves important information unwritten.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description is incomplete for a tool with three required nested-object parameters and zero parameter documentation. An agent would know the general intent but not how to structure the inputs or what behavioral guarantees apply.

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 none of the three parameters have descriptions. The text references 'research' and 'review' but never clarifies their structure or roles, and 'request' is entirely unexplained.

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') and the resources ('research' and 'review'), and the title 'Build Research Consensus' supplies the intended result. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from siblings like validate_evidence_review, though the output format is left implicit.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no named sibling. The caveat 'agent agreement is not evidence' hints at a use context but does not tell an agent when to choose this tool over validate_research_result or generate_migration_research_request.

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