consult_agent

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the traits that actually matter for a paid, stateful tool: $3 per turn, one consultation turn per call, and that conversation state only persists via `history`. That is substantive disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then cost, then turn/history mechanics, then module selection. Four dense sentences with no filler and no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells the agent what comes back (a domain-scoped answer). It covers cost, statefulness, continuation, and agent selection, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it 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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `history` is the mechanism for continuing a conversation ('pass prior turns as `history` to continue'), and `module` selects the expert. The enumerated module values largely duplicate the schema, so it is not a full 5.

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?

States a specific verb ('Consult'), a specific resource ('domain expert agents'), and the output shape ('domain-scoped answer'). The consult-a-domain-expert action is clearly distinguishable from the surrounding get_*/generate_* siblings, so an agent can pick it correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives real context: it may call free lookup tools but paid tools must be called directly, and continuation is done by passing prior turns as `history`. This effectively implies a when-not (for paid operations, call those tools directly). It stops short of naming sibling alternatives, so it falls just under a 5.

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