second_opinion

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

The description usefully discloses the async behavioral pattern — 'starts a validation job; poll job_status, collect job_result' — which goes beyond what annotations convey. However, annotations mark destructiveHint=true, and the description gives no hint of what destructive side effect a 'second opinion review' could have; it neither confirms nor explains this non-obvious trait. No direct contradiction with the annotations, but the destructive flag is left unexplained.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the core purpose and appends the essential async workflow in a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundancy. It could be slightly smoother, but every clause earns its place and the whole description is minimal without being under-specified.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does convey the critical post-invocation workflow (poll job_status, collect job_result). But it does not state what the initial call returns (e.g., a job identifier/receipt, given the sibling validation_receipt), and it leaves the destructiveHint=true annotation unaddressed. The schema covers parameters well, but the behavioral return contract is incomplete for an agent that must chain calls.

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 schema fully documents all four parameters (model enum/default, answer, select LCR routing, question), justifying the baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal mapping context ('one provider' ↔ model; 'review an answer' ↔ answer) without enriching any parameter semantics beyond the 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 and resource — 'Ask one provider CLI to review an answer' — and clarifies the async validation-job nature. It distinguishes itself from generation siblings (ask_model, *_request) by framing this as a review of an existing answer, and the 'one provider' phrasing separates it from multi-provider validation tools. However, it never explicitly names an alternative (e.g., validate_with_models or red_team_review), so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 implied: you use this when you want a single provider to review an answer, and the parenthetical tells you the follow-up workflow (poll job_status, collect job_result). But there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no guidance such as 'for multi-model validation use validate_with_models instead.'

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