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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds concrete behavioral detail: 'Nothing is stored' and 'does not answer for you.' This goes beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations about side effects and limits.

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 sentences, each serving a purpose: condition for use, what is returned, and what is not returned/stored. Slightly wordy but efficient, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: directives quoted with balance clauses, the question each poses, and what must be answered before resolution. It also sets limits on stored data and answer-providing behavior, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 documents both 'question' and 'directives' clearly. The description adds contextual meaning by tying 'question' to the decision and mentioning directives, but does not significantly augment the parameter definitions beyond baseline.

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 a specific verb ('returns the frame') and resource (the decision frame), and explicitly differentiates itself from answer-giving tools by saying 'It does not answer for you.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ask_guidance and deliberate_check.

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 opening phrase 'You have a decision with a real conflict in it' establishes when to use the tool, and 'does not answer for you' implicitly warns against using it when you need a conclusion. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough.

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