pending_committees

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully adds the 24h request expiry and the rule for when an item is considered done. However, it never explains why the tool is flagged non-read-only (does calling it claim or consume items?), leaving a real behavioral gap against its own annotation.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler, and the workflow instruction is front-loaded after the purpose. The opening sentence is a dense fragment with an awkward line break, which slightly hurts immediate parseability, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to describe return values, and it supplies the mode, workflow, completion rule, and TTL an agent needs to service the queue. The only missing piece is whether invoking it mutates state, which matters given readOnlyHint=false.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden and the baseline is 4. There is nothing about arguments the description could or should clarify.

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 identifies the resource (pending committee re-runs) and its trigger conditions (requested by events or price moves) and the operating mode (agent mode). It is a fragment rather than a verb-led statement, but an agent can tell it is the queue of committee work items it must service. It stops short of naming a sibling like run_committee to sharpen the contrast.

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 an explicit follow-up procedure: for each item run `prepare_committee`, then the roles, then `submit_committee`, plus the completion condition (a newer verdict for that symbol) and the 24h expiry. What it does not state is when to call this tool itself versus run_committee or pending_news, so routing guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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