coeus_multi_model_verify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that verification is 'real' (actual provider execution) and that output is a consensus summary, but it omits side effects such as network/provider calls, potential cost, failure modes, or what 'consensus limits' means in practice.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It wastes no words and immediately communicates the core purpose and distinguishing trait of the tool.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It leaves unclear what inputs are expected beyond 'prompt', what 'configured providers' refers to, how 'consensus limits' are computed, and what the result looks like.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's terse labels like 'Models', 'Providers', and 'Reasoning'; it does not clarify formats, constraints, or how parameters interact.

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 is specific: it names the action ('Run real verification'), the resource ('across configured providers'), and the expected outcome ('summarize consensus limits'). This distinguishes it from siblings like coeus_verify_solution and coeus_second_opinion by emphasizing multi-provider, consensus-focused execution.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like coeus_verify_solution, coeus_second_opinion, or coeus_critical_debate. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so the agent must infer when this multi-provider verification path is appropriate.

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