consult

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns advice from an expert, but it gives no detail on response format, limitations, side effects, or any behavioral nuance beyond that basic promise.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and every phrase serves a purpose.

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 simple 3-parameter advice tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential call pattern: select a single expert and ask a question. Optional context is documented in the schema. It omits guidance on which expert to choose or what the response will look like, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps to parameters ('choose an expert' to advisor, 'ask a question' to question) and does not add extra meaning or usage detail for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: '向智囊团中的单个专家咨询问题' (consult a single expert in the think tank). It also distinguishes itself from group-oriented siblings by emphasizing '单个专家' (single expert), making its scope clear.

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 usage when a single expert perspective is needed, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is left to inference rather than being stated directly.

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