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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behaviour, so safety is covered elsewhere. The description adds the genuinely non-obvious behaviour: the output is an advisory read only, and the actual decision is made together on a free call with Coach Chris. It does not describe the shape of the returned verdict, but no output schema exists to cover that either.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then constraints, then the disposition rule. Nothing is padded, though the privacy sentence could be folded into the passing-only-what-she-shared sentence.

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 5-parameter, all-optional, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the intent, the data-minimisation rule, and the fact that the answer is not final. Only the nature of the returned assessment is left unstated, which is a minor gap.

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 60% and the schema itself documents agent, goals and wants, but leaves age and life_stage bare. The description compensates partly by stating all fields are optional and by ruling out PII collection, which constrains what an agent should pass, yet it adds no meaning for the individual fields.

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 verb+resource: give an honest read on whether Forty Forward one-on-one coaching fits a user, based on what she has told you. That clearly separates it from siblings like get_program_overview or start_application, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

Gives useful operating guidance: use only what she has already shared, every field optional, and do not ask for name, email or health records. What is missing is any explicit when-to-use-this-vs-a-sibling routing, e.g. when to move from this check to start_application.

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