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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the response shape — an ordered three-step sequence ending in talking when calmer — but says nothing about tone, what it will not do (e.g., no diagnosis, no judgment), or how the input shapes the output.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the deliverable and then lists the steps in order; nothing is padded. Slight redundancy with the title and name ('repair... right now') but it earns its length.

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?

A read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema needs only modest explanation, and the description covers the character of the response. The unresolved meaning of both parameters is the meaningful gap an agent would hit at invocation time.

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 both parameters are undocumented anywhere. The description never explains what 'situation' should contain (a description of the fight? the topic? who is involved?) or what 'my_part' means (my contribution to the conflict versus my side of the story) — a critical ambiguity for an advisory tool that shapes its advice from that input.

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?

States a specific resource (a three-step immediate repair) with the exact steps spelled out, so an agent knows it produces a short procedural plan rather than an assessment or a referral. It never names a sibling, so the boundary with get_relationship_assessment or ask_relationship_expert is left implicit, but 'right now' and 'repair' are distinct enough to route on.

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?

'for right now' implies an acute, post-conflict timing that hints at when this applies versus longer-horizon siblings. No explicit when-not condition, prerequisite, or named alternative is given, so the agent must infer the routing from the tool name and framing.

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