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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses this is a private, finite framework, that answers are not shared through the integration, that the person remains the author, and that it is non-clinical. It also notes the locale parameter is used only for language selection rather than any user context, which is useful behavioral clarity. No annotation contradiction found.

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 fairly long but justifies its length by covering the tool's scope, examples, exclusions, and privacy posture. It's logically structured (when to use, examples, when not, key properties). It could trim some repetition around DREAMHALL's composition, but the detail is largely earned given the need to set clear expectations for a complex framework.

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's conceptual complexity (a 15-step personal development framework), the description provides substantial context: it names the 15 thematic areas, clarifies privacy, sets non-clinical boundaries, gives example triggers, and explains the single parameter's behavior. An output schema exists, so return value details needn't be spelled out. This is thorough for the context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single optional locale parameter, the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that the locale is normalized to a supported base locale, unsupported valid locales fall back to English, and that no other user context is accepted. This enriches the schema documentation without excess.

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 begins the DREAMHALL framework, a 15-task guided self-reflection process. It extensively lists applicable situations (life review, decisions, navigating new chapters, etc.) and specific example requests. It distinguishes from general factual requests and other hypothetical tools by defining the scope precisely, though the breadth of listed use-cases makes the precise trigger slightly fuzzy.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with many concrete examples of qualifying requests ("How do I change my life?", "I don't know what I want") and explicit exclusions ("not intended for unrelated factual or execution-only requests," "not emergency, medical, diagnostic, or crisis support"). It also notes it's an appropriate grounded alternative to manifestation/ritual-based approaches while explicitly not validating magical causation.

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