Consult an independent advisor

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

Both sentences of the second half add real context beyond the annotations: 'the advisor cannot inspect your workspace' explains why the evidence pack must be self-contained, and 'Each call counts toward the per-session call budget' discloses a cost constraint that annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing what form the advice comes back in or what the budget actually is, and annotations already cover the read-only/destructive profile.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the decision triggers, then the input constraint, then the cost constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the name or title.

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 15-parameter, open-world consultation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential decision context: when to call, that the advisor is blind to the workspace, and that calls consume budget. It leaves unstated what the response looks like and what the budget limit is, minor gaps against otherwise rich schema documentation.

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 73%, so most fields (goal, state, attempt, evidence, context, question, options) are already documented in the schema. The description contributes only the high-level framing of 'a compact evidence pack'; it says nothing about kind selection, session_id reuse, include_history, or the undocumented fields such as constraints, style, files_touched, and max_history_messages. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb+resource ('Get an independent second opinion') backed by an advisor entity, which is clearly distinct from session-management siblings like get_advisor_session or reset_advisor_session. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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?

It gives three concrete triggering conditions: before committing to a non-obvious plan, after repeated failures, and before declaring complex work complete. That is strong positive guidance, but it does not state when NOT to consult or which sibling to use for session inspection versus a fresh consult.

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