ask_council_async

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

Beyond the annotations (which only provide readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses important behavioral details: the run happens in the background, a job_id is returned immediately, and jobs are in-memory and do not survive a server reload. It also directs the user to the polling tool. This goes beyond the minimal annotation signal and gives useful operational context.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: the first defines the behavior, the second covers inputs and result retrieval, and the third notes the in-memory limitation. No redundancy or 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 an async background tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: starting a job, returning a job_id immediately, polling for results, and the job's in-memory persistence limitation. It could specify the job_id response shape, but the polling instruction makes the flow clear enough for an agent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds that inputs are the same as ask_council, which is helpful for transfer but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a council run in the background and return a job_id immediately.' It also distinguishes itself from the synchronous sibling ask_council by emphasizing the non-blocking nature for long deconfliction/dialectic runs or slow local models.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool (when a run might block) and instructs the user to poll get_council_result with the job_id. It references ask_council for shared inputs but does not explicitly state a 'when not to use' scenario or name an alternative for synchronous needs, which would merit a 5.

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