omnarai_divergence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It states the read-only nature via 'Read', details what each mode returns, notes that 'search' is ignored when 'id' is given, and characterizes the tool as 'instant' vs. the slow/expensive council. This goes well beyond a generic verb.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, uses a clear 'Two modes' structure, and each sentence provides distinct value — no filler. It's compact despite covering browse vs. read, output contents, and sibling distinction.

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 description fully explains return values for both modes (browse fields and full record components). It covers parameter interactions and differentiates from a sibling tool. No output schema exists, so this textual description is sufficient for a read tool with two optional params.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context: omitting 'id' triggers browse, passing 'id' fetches a full record, and explains how 'search' filters the index and is ignored when 'id' is present. This supplements the schema's individual parameter descriptions with interaction behavior.

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 opens with 'Read curated cross-model DIVERGENCE records' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly explains the content (verbatim answers from multiple frontier models) and distinguishes from omnarai_council by contrasting existing curated records vs. live panel convening.

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?

Explicitly describes two usage modes: omit 'id' to browse, pass 'id' to read one record, and clarifies when 'search' is applicable. It directly contrasts with omnarai_council and gives the preference: 'Prefer this when an existing record may already cover the question.'

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