ask-one

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds behavioral details about external API calls, key/CLI requirements, rate limits, and the return envelope format with error handling. No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds information. It front-loads the core purpose and provides structured details. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall it is clear and well-organized.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description adequately covers all parameters, return format, error cases, and usage notes. It lacks an explicit list of return fields but is sufficient for an advisory 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the provider parameter with examples, clarifying the expert parameter's behavior with named tools, and describing file attachment modes per provider type. This goes 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 clearly states the tool provides a second opinion from ONE named provider in the active panel, lists example provider names, and distinguishes from sibling tools like ask-all and provider-specific tools. It also notes the advisory, single-shot nature.

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 advises issuing N calls in parallel for multiple providers and clarifies the need for provider keys/CLI and rate limits. It also explains the return format and error case. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, it provides sufficient contextual guidance.

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