提交三家方略，进入质询

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces safe retry. It goes beyond structured data by disclosing that the call returns three parallel jobs, orchestrates handoff to independent instances, and triggers strategize_verdict later, which is valuable side-effect information.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by workflow detail and a retry-safety note. There is no filler; each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description covers the important orchestration side effects and retry safety. It omits the relationship to strategize_begin and any failure semantics, which leaves a small gap for an agent deciding whether this is the correct entry point.

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 input schema documents proposals and session_id with constraints, but the description adds little beyond 'complete three proposals'. It never explains session_id's role or how to construct either parameter, and with only 50% schema coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: it accepts the complete three proposals and returns three parallel challenge jobs. It also names strategize_verdict as the downstream step, differentiating from that sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with strategize_begin.

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 clear workflow context: this is the step that takes completed proposals, spawns parallel inquiries, and hands off to strategize_verdict after gathering results. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the flow is sufficiently clear for an agent to place it in the sequence.

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