consult_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals important behavioral traits: the partner sees only the question, not prior conversation; an ANTHROPIC_API_KEY is required; and the `partner` must be a valid Anthropic model id. It stops short of detailing cost/latency or error behavior, but the core behavioral caveats are disclosed.

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 three focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and purpose. Every clause adds useful guidance—when to use, sparingness, isolation, API key requirement, and model-id examples—without redundant fluff.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage conditions, behavioral constraints, and environmental prerequisites. It could mention the response format or failure modes, but the phrase 'get its response' plus the isolated-question caveat gives the agent enough context to operate 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. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving concrete model-id examples, stressing that the question must be self-contained, and explaining that `reasoning` is a one-sentence justification. This meaningfully enriches the otherwise terse schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Ask another Anthropic model a question and get its response.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the welfare/note sibling tools and states exactly what action occurs.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' guidance tells the agent when consulting is genuinely useful (second opinion, peer review, uncertain areas) and adds 'Use SPARINGLY.' It also warns that the partner only sees the `question`, so it must be self-contained—this sharpens appropriate vs. inappropriate usage.

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