council_reveal

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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the output (hat->model mapping and per-seat status) and adds a key warning about not using it for diagnostic weighting, which is a behavioral trait beyond the raw action. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or access requirements, but as a 'reveal' operation focused on returning data, the main behaviors are adequately covered.

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 main action, and each sentence adds value. The first explains what it does; the second provides crucial usage guidance. No waste, perfectly concise.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns (mapping and status) and the intended usage scenario. It lacks detailed return value structure (e.g., what 'per-seat status' contains), but for a debug tool, this is acceptable. The warning about non-diagnostic use adds important context, making it fairly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage—the only parameter, council_id, is just a type and title. The description does not mention council_id at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. While council_id is a simple integer, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the tool name.

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's function: 'De-anonymize a council: return the hat->model mapping and per-seat status.' It uses a specific verb ('de-anonymize'/'return') and identifies the resource ('council'). The mention of 'after synthesis' and 'do NOT use this to weight the diagnosis' distinguishes it from sibling tools like council_score and model_scores, which likely serve diagnostic purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('For human/debug insight AFTER synthesis') and when not to use it ('do NOT use this to weight the diagnosis'). This gives clear context and an exclusion, satisfying the 'explicit when/when-not' criterion even without naming an alternative tool.

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