Export a consultation as a record to commit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: it does not write files, it can read earlier sessions, it omits inferred adoption or scoring, and it specifies the document's opening section. Missing only pagination/size behavior, which is minor for a render 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?

Roughly 60 words, front-loaded with the action and output format, then usage, then the history-reading caveat. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the 'no inferred adoption or scoring' clause is the only slightly tangential bit.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by describing the Markdown layout and its leading verified/unverified summary. The one remaining gap is the chain_id-vs-group_id selection rule, which an agent would need in order to call it unambiguously.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain what each id means: chain_id = a single consultation, group_id = a fan-out. However, it never states whether the two are mutually exclusive or that one must be supplied despite required=0, which is the key ambiguity an agent faces here.

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 names a specific verb (render) and resource (one consultation or fan-out) and enumerates the payload: brief, answers, verdicts. It implicitly separates itself from consult_get by promising Markdown text rather than structured data, though it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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 text is returned, not written: put it beside the code the decision is about' tells the agent the intended use and that no artifact is created, while 'Reads the history, so an earlier session's consultation can be exported' clarifies it works on past sessions. No named alternatives or explicit when-not conditions are given.

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