consensus_check

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds that it 'starts validation jobs', which is consistent but adds little beyond the annotation. No further behavioral traits (e.g., authorization needs, side effects) are disclosed.

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?

Single sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is too brief and could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 no output schema, description should hint at return value (e.g., job IDs). It mentions starting validation jobs but not how to retrieve results. Adequate but incomplete for an async job-triggering tool.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'claim' and 'models'. Description does not add new meaning beyond the schema details, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool asks provider CLIs about agreement/disagreement on a claim and starts validation jobs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like individual model request tools (e.g., claude_request) and other validation tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like compare_answers, validate_with_models, or second_opinion. Usage is implied from purpose, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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