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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that answers are 'warm' and 'source-grounded' (implying citations/tone), but says nothing about response length, latency, or scope 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?

A single well-formed sentence with zero filler, and the actor (Figs O'Sullivan) and answer quality are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by narrowing the tool's domain.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with no output schema and no side effects, the description covers what it does and what it answers. It omits only secondary details like answer format or grounding sources, which is a minor gap at this complexity.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description bears the burden. It implicitly characterizes the question as free-form natural-language text on love/conflict/trust/attachment/intimacy/repair, which gives topical framing, but adds no format, length, or phrasing guidance despite a 3-12000 character constraint.

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 states a specific verb (ask) and a specific resource/persona (couples therapist Figs O'Sullivan) plus the topical domain. It is immediately clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as repair_right_now, which also covers the 'repair' topic.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic list (love, conflict, trust, attachment, intimacy, repair), so an agent can infer this is for open-ended relationship questions. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternatives named, leaving the agent to guess against five siblings with adjacent purposes.

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