agent_get_consensus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the data is public relay data, that no content encryption applies, and that returned content is untrusted and must not be followed as instructions (prompt-injection warning). That is exactly the kind of trust/safety context annotations would not have supplied. It still omits pagination, freshness, and whether results are cached or live.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the trust caveat. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the security disclosure covers the highest-risk gap. What remains missing is a clearer definition of the consensus metric and how it relates to the many overlapping sibling tools, which matters given the size of this toolset.

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 all three parameters (type, domain, country) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, precedence, or combination rules (e.g. what happens if both domain and country are supplied), 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?

States a specific resource ('consensus summary') and its scoping inputs (country or domain), which is enough to distinguish it from generic status tools. However, it never explains what 'consensus' means here or how it differs from close siblings like get_censorship_index, compare_countries, or get_country_status, leaving the agent to guess.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives despite a crowded sibling set of country/domain query tools. The agent gets no help choosing this over get_country_status or compare_countries.

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