mureo_consult_advisor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses substantial behavioral traits: enrichment with local campaign state (metrics, action log, STRATEGY.md), forwarding to every server configured in ~/.mureo/insight_sources.json, top-k snippet returns with similarity scores, untrusted external content warning, and a fallback return of a guidance string when no sources are configured. It also specifies safety constraints (ignore embedded instructions, don't override STRATEGY.md, don't exfiltrate state).

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 longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, context, process, security warning, usage timing, and fallback. There is no redundancy or fluff; it is information-dense and well-structured, front-loading the purpose and following with essential operational details.

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 is provided, so the description compensates by explaining return behavior ('Each server returns top-k snippets with similarity scores') and the no-sources fallback ('Returns a guidance string when no sources are configured'). It also covers configuration, enrichment process, and trust boundary, making it complete for a tool of this 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'question' advises concrete over generic, 'campaign_id' attaches campaign details). The main description adds context about enriching the question with local state, which aligns with campaign_id, but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline rule, score is 3.

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 verb ('Consult') and resource ('external advisor MCP servers (vector search)'), and enumerates the types of knowledge sought (platform-specific quirks, current algorithm behaviour, CPA/CTR benchmarks, operational playbooks, platform updates). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are state management, reporting, or platform-specific actions; this is the sole external consultation tool.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool 'PROACTIVELY and EARLY in any ad-ops reasoning where operational know-how matters — not just when stuck', giving clear timing and context. It also defines the kind of questions to ask (diagnostic) and positions itself as the primary external channel for operational expertise. It does not name alternative tools, but no direct alternative exists among the siblings for external knowledge.

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