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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in annotations: results come back in fixed bank order, capped at 30, each with area and feeling, plus a total match count even when empty. It stops short of saying how filters combine (AND vs OR) or whether keyword matching is case-insensitive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is searched, then the return contract, then the usage routing. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 return contract itself and does so adequately: result count, per-item fields, ordering, cap, and the empty case. For a zero-required-parameter read-only search over a fixed 30-item bank, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning by implying the filters can be mixed ('or by a mix of those'), which the schema never states, and by tying the 30-result ceiling to the bank size. It does not clarify matching semantics for keyword or whether 'off' must pair with a valid area.

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 states a specific verb and resource plus the exact search axes ('by life area, by what felt off, by a keyword, or by a mix'), and it scopes the data set as a 'fixed bank of 30 resolution actions.' It clearly separates itself from pick_resolution but never mentions get_resolution, so one sibling boundary remains unstated.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use: browsing what the quiz can pick prior to running the full quiz via pick_resolution. That is a real routing decision, but there is no guidance on when to prefer get_resolution or on what to do when zero matches come back beyond the fact that the count will show it.

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