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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses privacy behavior ('Nothing they write is stored') and a critical conditional routing rule: self-harm or harm-to-others input returns crisis resources only. These are high-value behavioral traits an agent must know before calling and cannot infer from 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?

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded: trigger first, then outputs, then privacy, then the safety branch. Every sentence carries distinct, load-bearing information with no waste.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (guidance, quote, optional practice) and the one exception case (crisis resources). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the 'situation' field fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance about the input beyond what the schema states, so the 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 trigger scenario (stuck in a loop: scrolling, texting an ex, procrastinating, spiralling, craving) and concrete outputs (Six Eight's method as guidance, one verified quote, a matching 6:8 practice). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_quotes or get_verse by framing it as situational guidance rather than lookup. Differentiation is implicit in the trigger framing rather than explicit routing.

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 opening clause gives vivid when-to-use conditions with five concrete examples, which is strong guidance. However, it names no exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when to prefer daily_wisdom or search_quotes instead), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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