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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds "source-grounded" and "warm", useful tone/provenance cues, but says nothing about response shape, length, latency, or the fact that this is not clinical advice.

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 tight sentence with the persona and topic scope front-loaded; every clause carries information, none is filler.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and the domain it answers in. Missing only a note on answer format/citation behavior.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only implicitly defines it via the topic list, giving no guidance on phrasing, length, or whether context about the couple should be included. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

Specific verb ("Ask") plus named resource/persona (couples therapist Figs O'Sullivan) and an enumerated topic scope (love, conflict, trust, attachment, intimacy, repair). An agent can tell this is a Q&A/knowledge tool rather than an assessment or action tool, though it doesn't name a sibling to contrast with.

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 topic list implies when to use it (relationship questions on those themes), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings like repair_right_now or name_conflict_pattern, which overlap in subject matter. Selection is left to inference.

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