Get a running council's answer

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) but not the polling semantics, which the description supplies: a ~50 s wait that returns as soon as something is ready, the need to re-call while still working, and the notable fact that waiting consumes no model quota while re-asking burns the plan twice. This explains the otherwise puzzling idempotentHint=false for a read-only tool (council_join advances the turn) and adds real operational context.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the trigger and retry rule, and every clause earns its place (sibling list, wait duration, retry, anti-pattern, quota note). Slightly run-on rather than wasteful.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still covers the polling loop, the retry rule, the sibling routing, and the quota trade-off. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents job_id's origin and the omit-to-use-most-recent behavior. The description reinforces the source tools but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific action (wait for a job that returned status 'working' with a job_id) and the result (its answer, or with council_join the next turn). It explicitly names the sibling tools that produce such job_ids (council_ask, council_debate, council_ask_codex, council_ask_claude, council_join), so an agent can distinguish it from the start-a-job siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('Wait for a job that returned status working with a job_id'), the alternative it replaces ('Use it instead of asking the same question again, which would start a second job and use the plans twice'), and the retry condition ('if the job is still working, call it again'). Both the positive trigger and the anti-pattern are spelled out.

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