agent_get_consensus

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says it 'shows how many agents agree'. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, safe, idempotent, or if there are any side effects. The description is too brief to give the agent confidence about the tool's behavior.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no wasted text. However, it could include slightly 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 the tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format (e.g., count, percentage, list) or how the parameters interact. The agent lacks context to use the tool effectively without additional trial and error.

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% description coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already provides basic meaning. The description reinforces that the tool filters by country or domain but adds little beyond the schema. It does not clarify how optional parameters interact or what happens when none are provided.

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 retrieves a consensus summary for a country or domain, indicating how many agents agree on censorship claims. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('consensus summary'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agent_get_attestation or agent_get_trust, which serve different purposes.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about preferred use cases, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools such as forecast_* or anomaly_* tools that also analyze censorship data.

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