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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description earns credit for adding deterministic-engine context: 360 answer paths, 90 distinct resolutions, fixed bank of 30 actions. It also discloses the fallback behavior when an answer is missing or invalid ('the result says what is needed and lists the valid choices'), which is genuinely useful operational detail beyond the annotations.

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 opening is well front-loaded, but the middle collapses into a single very long sentence enumerating every returned field, plus a parenthetical about week-one sizing and stakes lines that is dense and hard to parse. The example at the end earns its place, but the body could be broken into shorter statements without losing content.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly: resolution, first move, guard line, check-in prompt, future-you note, share text, and site link. It also states the answer-validation behavior and determinism, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description goes further by mapping each parameter to its effect on the output: area and 'off' choose the action, time sizes the dose, and 'fail' picks the guard line. That causal mapping is meaning the schema itself does not convey.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('pick one resolution') and immediately scopes it as a single result from a fixed bank of 30 actions computed by a quiz engine. The phrase 'One resolution, not ten' implicitly separates it from the plural search_resolutions sibling, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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: the agent learns it must supply four quiz-style answers about area, what felt off, weekly time, and past failure. There is no explicit 'use this instead of get_resolution/search_resolutions when...' routing, so the agent must infer the boundary between picking a new resolution and retrieving or searching existing ones.

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