consult

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

With no annotations, the description is the only behavioral disclosure. It states the creation of a two-party mediated session, the question being recorded as the first turn, and a return dictionary. However, it does not disclose side effects like idempotency, thread lifecycle, or prerequisites—adequate but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes redundant phrasing—'Create advisory consultation session' followed by 'Creates a two-party mediated session.' The Args list is informative but adds length. It could be more concise without losing clarity.

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?

The description covers the action, parameters, and return dictionary, making it largely complete for a creation tool. However, it omits usage context or exclusions, which would make it fully rounded. Given the output schema exists and parameters are well-described, it is adequate.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section provides meaningful descriptions for each parameter, including defaults and examples (e.g., advisor_role: 'TMG', 'CE'). This fully addresses the schema gap and adds clear semantic value.

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 'Create advisory consultation session' and explains the two-party structure and the first turn being recorded. This is a specific verb+resource with distinct intent, and it distinguishes itself from debate-focused siblings like run_debate or init_debate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention conditions for choosing a different tool. It solely describes what the tool does, leaving usage context entirely to the agent's inference.

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