qm_second_opinion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it states the tool is advisory only, not legal/financial/professional advice, free, anonymous, and stores nothing. It also provides a concrete example of the output behavior ('returns risk flags warning the action is destructive and irreversible').

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then covers limitations, privacy, usage alternatives, and an example in a logical order. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

For a single-parameter advisory tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it covers what to provide, when to use it, what it returns at a high level, and its privacy guarantees. A minor gap is the lack of detail on the format or severity interpretation of risk flags, though the example partially covers this.

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% for the single action parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema by instructing the user to 'describe the action plainly' and giving an example of the natural-language phrasing expected, which clarifies the semantic intent.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it provides an 'advisory second opinion' via a 'rule-based scan for common risk patterns'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming qm_scrub and qm_clinic_diagnose as the alternatives for different concerns.

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 explicitly says to describe the action 'before taking it' and gives explicit routing rules: use qm_scrub for injected text in input and qm_clinic_diagnose for behavior concerns. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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