Multi-specialty discuss

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, setting a low bar. The description adds behavioral context by disclosing that it 'Surfaces challenges from each specialty POV, then recommends a sequence,' and clarifies it will not hire or parallel-implement. This goes beyond the annotations to describe the tool's mode of operation.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the action and formats, the second clarifies output and non-goals. Every word 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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the key output ('recommends a sequence') and enumerates all supported formats. It does not describe the return format in detail, but for a discussion tool the essentials are covered. The schema handles parameter details and defaults, so the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add syntax or parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only refers abstractly to 'specialty POV' and lists formats already in the enum. Thus no significant additional semantic value.

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 and resource: 'Run a multi-role discussion on an idea,' and lists the exact discussion formats. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating what it is not for ('not hiring, not parallel implement-everything').

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 implies use when a multi-role discussion is needed and provides exclusions with 'not hiring, not parallel implement-everything.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state 'use this instead of X'.

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