run_committee

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, not readonly), the description adds details: requires backend key, 30-90s cache miss, instant cache hit, and returned object fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is structured with sections, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value; could be trimmed modestly but remains clear.

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?

Given complexity (4 roles, debate, caching, output schema), the description covers prerequisites, parameter details, performance, and return structure. Output schema exists but description still usefully summarizes fields.

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%, baseline 3. Description enhances parameters with examples ('AAPL', 'GC=F'), clarifies force behavior, and explains max_rounds as 'Cross-challenge debate rounds.' Adds value beyond schema.

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 ('Run') and resource ('4-role LLM investment committee on a symbol'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like buy/sell which execute trades.

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 explains when to use (for investment analysis), mentions prerequisites (backend LLM key), and states 'Decision support only — the human always executes.' It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives but provides sufficient context.

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