prepare_committee

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses genuinely important behavior: the backend retains its own copy of the deterministic facts and reuses them at submit time (defense downgrade, regime, path snapshot) so omitted facts can't silently disable a rule, and the prepared data expires after 6 hours. This is exactly the kind of stateful/expiry/auth-adjacent context the annotations cannot convey.

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 step-by-step structure is front-loaded with the purpose and then the sequence, and each statement adds value. It runs a bit long with parentheticals, but nothing is truly wasted given the multi-step workflow described.

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 complex prep tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned payload (regime, sentiment/defense flag, valuation, macro, events, portfolio, path reference, the 6 role prompts, and instructions for the 3 rounds), which is exactly what an agent needs to proceed. Nothing essential 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 coverage is 100% and there is a single well-documented parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format guidance for `symbol` beyond what the schema states, making a baseline 3 appropriate.

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 precise verb+resource+scope: 'Step 1 of the agent-run committee (Coordinator path): get everything YOU need to play the 4 roles yourself.' It distinguishes itself from sibling paths by explicitly ruling out a 'backend LLM key' and by naming the follow-up tool submit_committee, so an agent can place it relative to run_committee and submit_committee immediately.

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 clear sequencing: run Macro/Quant/Risk subagents, write the CIO memo, then call submit_committee, plus a concrete 6-hour submission window. It never explicitly states when NOT to use it versus the alternative run_committee path, so the choice between the two coordinator/backend paths is left to inference.

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