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 covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral signal — that no automatic delivery script is produced — but says nothing about what the response actually contains, its length, or tone.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding, and the core outcome is front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly ambiguous ("as care for both", "delivery script"), but nothing is wasted.

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 two-parameter relational tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves too much open: the meaning of both inputs, what the agent receives back, and how it differs from ask_relationship_expert are all unaddressed.

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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not: "situation" and "my_part" are never explained, nor is it clear whether "my_part" means my contribution to the conflict or my side of the story. "For each of you" only faintly gestures at the two-parameter structure.

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 conveys the domain (post-fight repair) and roughly what the tool produces: an understanding of what happened for each partner plus the cycle, with practical help. But the verb is soft ("help repair") and there is no differentiation from siblings such as ask_relationship_expert or name_conflict_pattern, so an agent cannot cleanly separate this from adjacent tools.

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?

"No automatic delivery script" hints at an output constraint but gives no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no named alternative for the equally plausible siblings (ask_relationship_expert, get_relationship_assessment). The agent must infer the routing decision entirely.

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