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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful transparency about the returned content, including the named pattern, protected/feared dynamics, and suggested sentences, though it does not mention privacy, limitations, or that this is not therapy.

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 definition is a single tightly written sentence that front-loads the input and then lists the expected outputs. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool.

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 simple one-parameter tool with robust annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what to provide and what the response will contain. It stops short of clarifying limitations or sibling-tool selection, but nothing critical for invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the single required parameter should be a recent conflict with a partner, which maps well to 'what_happened,' but it gives no guidance on length, format, or level of detail.

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 input (a recent conflict with a partner) and a concrete output bundle: a named repeating pattern, what each partner may be protecting/fearing, and suggested sentences. It is clearly more specific than a generic relationship-advice tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as repair_right_now or ask_relationship_expert.

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 tells the agent when the tool is relevant. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent toward alternatives like repair_right_now or find_couples_therapist.

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