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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a single non-numeric insight rather than a score, which is genuinely useful; it does not address input formatting, length limits, or what the insight response looks like.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the requested input content is front-loaded ahead of the promised output. The slightly oblique phrasing keeps it from being maximally clear.

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, the description does give a minimal statement of the return ('one non-numeric Wisdom Score insight'), and annotations cover side effects. But for a free-text-input tool it omits everything about how to shape the input string and how the insight is framed.

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% and the sole 'responses' string parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does partially by enumerating the three things to include (the fight, the partner's inferred feelings, a different action), but never ties that content to the 'responses' field or indicates format/length.

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 sentence never states a verb+resource explicitly (e.g. 'generates a Wisdom Score insight'), but the combination of the input it asks for and the 'one non-numeric Wisdom Score insight' output lets an agent infer the purpose. It is distinguishable from siblings mainly by the 'non-numeric' output qualifier rather than by a stated function.

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 guidance on when to pick this over get_relationship_assessment, repair_right_now, or ask_relationship_expert, all of which overlap in the couples-reflection space. The 'one non-numeric insight' phrase hints at a lightweight alternative but never frames it as such.

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