Get consultation status or result

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains blocking behavior, the 45-second cap, the expectation of multiple calls, failure kinds, and the distinction between failure and thin evidence. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence adds value—blocking, failure kinds, fan-out. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then elaborates. Slightly long, but not padded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description covers the essential behavioral and semantic ground. It mentions the structured answer and failure.kind, hinting at response fields. It could add more about edge cases (e.g., invalid job_id) or the exact response shape, but it is adequate for an agent to call the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: wait_ms is detailed (blocking, cap, purpose), group_id is explained as fan-out, and job_id is implied as the primary identifier. This goes beyond the bare schema and compensates for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 fetches the state of a consultation, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling consult_list, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from starting or canceling consultations.

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?

Provides concrete guidance on when to use wait_ms (to block instead of polling), how long consultations take, and when to pass group_id for fan-out. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the situational guidance is clear and actionable.

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