Consult Specialist Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the boundary of safety is covered. The description adds that it relies on an already-loaded specialty and provides judgment, not hiring, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Mid-task check') and includes the critical 'Not hiring' qualifier. There is no redundant information.

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 tool has 3 parameters with full schema descriptions and annotations cover safety. The description explains the purpose, the dependency on an already-loaded specialty, and the output nature ('specialist judgment'), making it complete enough for selection and invocation, though it doesn't detail response format.

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% and the schema's role field already explains accepted formats and that loading context does not hire people. The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs a mid-task consult against an already-loaded specialty's quality bars and decision frameworks. It uses a specific verb ('check') and distinguishes from hiring tools by saying 'Not hiring,' which sets it apart from siblings like workforce_delegate.

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 indicates use when there's a mid-task blocker or decision and specialist judgment is needed. It explicitly clarifies it is not for hiring, excluding an alternative use, and implies the specialty context must already be loaded, aligning with workforce_specialize as a preceding tool.

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