apply_consolidation_rules

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the verdict logic (Blocker/Unjustified Major to REJECTED), the weighted rubric scorecard when scores are present, and the `arbitration_needed` flag. It does not cover side effects, authorization, or rate limits, but given the absence of annotations, the level of behavioral detail is strong.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value (logic, optional parameters, output fields). Slightly verbose but not wasteful; good conciseness for the complexity.

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 tool has nested objects and no output schema. The description covers core verdict rules, optional parameters, and key outputs (`arbitration_needed`, `severity_counts`, `agents_involved`, rubric scorecard). It does not explain the `threshold` parameter or how `weights` map to scores, but references an external rule document and sibling `score_rubric` for additional context. Overall adequate for the complexity.

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. It explains the `reports` parameter implicitly and details the `min_score` behavior. However, it does not explain `weights` or `threshold`, leaving gaps. The mention of per-dimension scores and weighted rubric adds value beyond the raw schema.

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 verb 'Aggregate and emit' and the resource 'advisory reports', and specifies the verdict logic. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the unique rule-based aggregation behavior is evident.

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 explains the optional `min_score` parameter and its use case for quality bars, and mentions `arbitration_needed` to signal when consolidation is unnecessary. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives among siblings.

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