council_estimate

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

The annotation already marks it as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: 'no network call, no billing' and 'without spending'. This clarifies the side-effect-free nature in a way the annotation alone does not convey. No contradictions.

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 only two sentences and packs in purpose, safety, and timing without any filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it immediately understandable.

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 the tool's simple read-only nature and the rich annotations and schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and safety. It does not describe the return format or precision of the estimate, and since there is no output schema, that is a minor gap, but not enough to lower the score further.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters, so schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying that the input can be a 'roadmap, diff, prompt, or file set', which expands on the schema's narrower 'roadmap, diff, or file' phrasing. Depth is not mentioned, but the schema's enum covers it sufficiently.

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 specific action ('Estimate the token cost') and the resource ('AI-council debate over a given input'). It also distinguishes itself from a real council run by emphasizing 'without spending — no network call, no billing', leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 phrase 'Use before deciding whether to authorize a real council run' explicitly defines when to use this tool. While it provides a clear context, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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