council_estimate

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

The description explicitly states 'without spending — no network call, no billing' and 'Read-only.' This fully discloses the tool's non-destructive, read-only nature. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and meets it excellently.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and immediately clarifies the key behavioral trait (no spending). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the tool's purpose and usage are clear, the description does not explain the return value format or content. Since there is no output schema, the description should ideally describe what the agent can expect as output (e.g., token count, currency, etc.). This omission makes it slightly incomplete.

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 description does not need to add detailed parameter meanings, but it does add value by expanding the input types beyond what the schema lists (e.g., adding 'prompt' and 'file set'). The description also implies the depth parameter's purpose but does not elaborate on enum values, which is acceptable.

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 uses the specific verb 'Estimate' and clearly identifies the resource as 'token cost of an AI-council debate'. It lists possible input types (roadmap, diff, prompt, or file set), distinguishing this tool from siblings that perform actual council runs or unrelated tasks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use before deciding whether to authorize a real council run.' This provides clear context. However, it does not mention alternative tools for actual council runs or explicitly state when not to use it, which keeps it from a top score.

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