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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the finite size of the bank (30), the exact return payload, and the miss behavior ('the result says so and gives example ids') rather than an error. It does not cover ordering or how the 3 similar actions are ranked, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the accepted inputs, then the failure case — a sensible order. The field enumeration in the first sentence is long but each item is substantive for an agent with no output schema; minor redundancy with the schema's own id/name wording keeps it from a 5.

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 all-optional parameters, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it enumerates return contents, lists valid input modes, and explains the no-match outcome. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the area+off pairing and the id/name acceptance. The description restates the same acceptance modes ('an action id or name... or an area plus a feeling') without adding format, precedence, or ambiguity rules (e.g., what happens if both id and area are supplied), so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns the full detail for one action in the bank of 30') and enumerates exactly what that detail includes: life area, feeling, first move, three time-level resolutions, guard lines, and similar actions. An agent can distinguish it from pick_resolution and search_resolutions without opening any schema.

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?

The description routes the agent clearly by stating inputs come 'from pick_resolution or search_resolutions, or an area plus a feeling', which implies this is the detail-fetch step after picking or searching. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use or contrast the siblings' own purposes, so it stops short of full 5-level routing guidance.

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