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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description usefully discloses what comes back (named pattern, protections, fears, repair sentences), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it omits how the input is processed or any 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 front-loaded sentence that names the action first and then enumerates the outputs. No filler; every clause earns its place. Slightly dense but well structured.

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 does the work of explaining return values (pattern name, protections/fears, one repair sentence each), and annotations cover safety. The main gap is the undocumented input parameter and no usage routing, but overall it is close to complete for a one-param tool.

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?

The single parameter (what_happened) has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It says to describe a recent conflict with your partner, which maps the param to intent, but adds no format, scope, or length guidance (e.g., the 12,000-char cap) beyond that.

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+resource: it takes a described conflict and returns a named repeating pattern, what each partner is protecting/fearing, and repair sentences. This is clear and concrete, including a sample output ("the Waltz of Pain"). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like repair_right_now or ask_relationship_expert, so it falls short of a 5.

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 "Describe a recent conflict with your partner," which signals when the tool applies. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative among the five siblings (ask_relationship_expert, repair_right_now, etc.), leaving routing to inference.

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