Single tool 'consult_council' has a reasonable description and input schema structure, but critical gaps in parameter documentation, output schema definition, and error handling guidance. The schema shows input parameters with types and descriptions, but lacks comprehensive validation documentation, output structure documentation, and error recovery patterns. Parameter descriptions exist but are minimal. No evidence of idempotency guarantees, retry guidance, or actionable error messages. The tool's description is adequate (195 chars) but lacks WHEN/WHY guidance and doesn't address the asynchronous nature of the council process or expected response structure. File attachment parameters ('files' array) lack validation constraints (max count, max size, allowed formats).

• Document the complete output schema including: final_verdict (string), confidence_score (0-1 float), stage1_responses (array of {model, response}), stage2_rankings (array of {model, rank, score}), reasoning (string). Specify types and constraints for each field.
• Add validation constraints to 'files' parameter: 'Array of file contents as strings. Max 10 files, each max 50KB. Supports text formats only (no binary). Each file will be treated as context for the council.'
• Expand 'query' description: 'The question or problem to analyze (min 10 chars, max 2000 chars). Be specific, vague queries may result in low consensus. Context from files field will inform the analysis.'
• Add error recovery guidance: 'If council fails to reach consensus (confidence < 0.6), try rephrasing the query or providing additional context files. If a specific model times out, results will exclude that model's input.'
• Document async behavior: 'Returns immediately with a structured council verdict once all three stages complete. The process may take 10-30 seconds depending on model availability. Does not support streaming.'
• Add idempotency declaration: 'Calling with identical query and files will return the same verdict. Safe to retry on transient failures (network timeouts, model unavailability).'
• Specify what 'chairman's verdict' actually is: 'A synthesized recommendation that weighs the rankings and responses from stage 2. Includes reasoning for the recommended approach.'
• Add constraints on file count and size to prevent resource exhaustion attacks.