consult

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that routing and explicit local degradation are reported, that the tool returns advisory rather than governed judgment, and that it never creates a review verdict. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it stops short of describing side-effect guarantees or failure behavior in more detail.

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, stating the core identity first. Each of the five sentences earns its place: core purpose, key parameter choices, output nature, diagnostics guidance, and exclusion of review verdicts. There is 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?

Given nine parameters, four enums, and no output schema, the description plus the fully-documented input schema give an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is that the exact shape of the returned 'advisory evidence' is not described, but response_mode='full' guidance partially compensates by pointing to route diagnostics.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds value beyond the schema by framing which parameters matter ('Choose purpose, standard or thorough effort, and whether external processing is allowed') and by giving a concrete response_mode selection rule. It does not repeat every parameter definition, which is appropriate given the schema already documents them.

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 identifies this as the 'Primary advisory model-help surface' and states that it 'returns advisory evidence, not governed judgment.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from request_review by stating 'consult never creates a review verdict; use request_review for that,' so an agent can differentiate it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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 gives direct usage guidance: choose purpose, effort level, and external-processing allowance, and use response_mode='full' for route diagnostics. It also names the specific alternative for review verdicts ('use request_review for that'), making the when-to-use vs when-not-to-use boundary explicit.

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