advise_decision

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the call is 'Paid' and the response shape is recommendation/next_step/reasoning. However, it says nothing about latency, rate limits, auth requirements, or whether the recommendation is advisory-only — meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with the input→output contract, then cost, then return fields. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields (recommendation, next_step, reasoning) and flags the paid nature, which is what an agent most needs. Minor gaps remain around cost magnitude and whether calls can be batched.

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% for the single 'question' parameter, so the schema already documents its meaning. The description's 'decision or set of options' restates the schema's 'The decision or options to weigh' without adding format, length, or phrasing guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('give a decision or set of options' → 'get a concrete recommendation') that is clearly distinct from siblings like verify_claim, summarize_url, or check_domain. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer 'use this when you need a recommendation' from the purpose, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over alternatives such as verify_claim or grounding_line, nor any exclusions. 'Paid' hints at a cost tradeoff but is not framed as a selection criterion.

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