council

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

Discloses that the tool is read-only ('never writes to disk'), makes parallel HTTP calls, and explains backend selection behavior driven by topic and confidence_needed. With no annotations, the description fully carries the safety and behavior disclosure burden.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, safety, and return object. Every sentence adds information, and the return structure is detailed but necessary given the absence of an output schema. No filler or 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameter interactions, safety, latency, and provides a full return object specification. This is especially complete given the tool's complexity and missing output schema. It gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema documents each parameter's type and enum. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between topic and backend routing, and that confidence_needed auto-calculates the number of backends. The mapping of confidence levels to counts is already in the schema, so it doesn't fully go beyond, but the interaction logic is an addition.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Pose one prompt to several AI backends in parallel and return all of their responses for Claude to synthesize.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the alternative 'ask' for single backend queries.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('architectural trade-offs, controversial calls, or anywhere dissent surfaced cheaply'), latency expectations, and an explicit exclusion ('For a single backend query, use ask'). This is textbook usage guidance.

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