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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'labeled strategy card' and is random, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether repeated calls can return the same strategy or any rate limits, but for a random read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 description is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core action ('Get a random Reframe strategy'). The repeated 'Use this when' phrasing is slightly redundant but not bloated. Every sentence contributes to usage understanding.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, and what to expect in return. It doesn't explain the difference between Reframe and sibling categories, but the category name and purpose are sufficient for basic selection.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the returned card contains (a labeled strategy) and the purpose, which helps the agent understand the output even without an output schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns a random Reframe strategy and is for shifting perspective or breaking mental ruts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the 'Reframe' category, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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 provides explicit use cases: when stuck in a single way of thinking, facing opposition, or needing a different angle. It says 'Use this when' and lists perspective changes, reversing assumptions, and adopting alternative viewpoints. It doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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