convene_council

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose deterministic behavior, zero extra LLM calls, and the reconciled output. However, it instructs passing `task: {}` while the schema disallows additional properties, making the augmentation feature misleading. This inconsistency lowers the score.

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 core purpose and output. It is efficient, though 'deterministic' appears twice, creating slight redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the output well (weighted recommendation, agreement level, confidence) but leaves the `task: {}` augmentation ambiguous and does not detail what streaming each lens entails. The schema covers params, but the task contradiction remains a gap.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter documentation, so the description adds little beyond the task augmentation mention (which is not schema-valid). The regime default is already documented in the schema, so the description adds minimal value beyond the structured fields.

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 clearly states the tool is a 'Deterministic advisory council' for 'should I invest my surplus or prepay my loan?' decisions, evaluating three lenses and producing a weighted recommendation with agreement and confidence. This is a specific verb-plus-resource that distinguishes it from generic financial planning tools.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: for invest-vs-prepay decisions, and highlights the single-call deterministic advantage. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use compare_emi_vs_investment instead.

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