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 genuine behavioral value by disclosing the shape of the response (a staged, ordered three-step sequence) that no output schema provides; it says nothing about length, tone, or personalization.

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, front-loaded with the deliverable and its three ordered steps. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the sequence order is preserved in the phrasing.

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 read-only tool with no output schema the description adequately conveys the return shape, and annotations cover safety. The gap is input guidance: the required 'situation' field and optional 'my_part' are undocumented everywhere, which matters for a tool whose output quality depends entirely on the supplied narrative.

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 coverage is 0% for two parameters, one required, so the schema gives no field-level documentation. The description never mentions 'situation' or 'my_part' — what to include, how much detail, or when the optional 'my_part' matters — so an agent must guess at input content quality.

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 concrete deliverable (a three-step repair) and enumerates the three steps, so an agent knows exactly what calling it produces. It does not compare itself to siblings like ask_relationship_expert or name_the_dance, so the 'right now / acute conflict' niche must be inferred from the name and title.

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 rather than stated: 'right now' plus the title 'Help me repair after a fight' signals immediate post-conflict de-escalation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for slower, reflective, or expert-advice needs, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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