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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the output is 'non-numeric' and a 'quick read', which is useful context about the result shape, but it does not explain whether the insight is generated by a model, cached, or how it differs from the full assessment.

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 single sentence is compact and front-loaded with the input request. However, it wastes its only sentence on input specification and never states what the tool actually does, which is a structural misplacement of emphasis.

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 and a sparse one-parameter schema, the description should carry the burden of explaining what the agent gets back and when to use it. It does neither, leaving the agent unable to distinguish this from the three other relationship-assessment tools.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, 'responses', with 0% schema description coverage and no enum. The description indicates the expected content (a recent fight, partner's feelings, an alternative action), which is useful, but it does not tell the agent the format needed for the string or the minimum length (3 chars) or maximum (12000 chars). The single-param baseline would be 4, but the description leaves the format requirements ambiguous.

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 describes what input to provide rather than what the tool does or returns. 'One non-numeric Wisdom Score insight' is abstract and undefined — it does not state the resource being acted on (e.g., 'analyze a relationship incident and return coaching insight') nor distinguish it from siblings like get_relationship_assessment 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The description never mentions the sibling tools or explains why an agent would pick this over get_relationship_assessment or ask_relationship_expert. One sibling, find_couples_therapist, is clearly a different intent, but the three assessment/expert tools are not differentiated at all.

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