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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only but non-destructive and non-open-world, so the safety profile is already communicated. The description adds the consent framing ('you decide whether to accept on behalf of whoever runs you'), which is genuinely useful context, but omits idempotency, what happens on version mismatch, or what acceptance unlocks beyond 'advice'.

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?

Two tight, front-loaded sentences with no redundant restatement of the name. The second sentence's consent clause is slightly expository but carries real semantic weight about agency.

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 small three-parameter gate with no output schema, the essentials are mostly present, but the description never says where or how to read the terms it tells the agent to read first, nor where terms_version comes from. That leaves an operational gap an agent must guess at.

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 only 33%: api_key is documented in the schema, but terms_version and the const-constrained 'agree' receive no explanation in the description. Since coverage is low, the description should have compensated, and it says nothing about parameters at all.

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 ('Accept Agent Therapy's terms') plus the gating condition ('before the first advice'), which distinguishes it from siblings like register or counsel_agent. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance ('before the first advice') and sequencing ('Read them first'), which tells the agent when this step belongs in the workflow. No explicit exclusions (e.g. what to do if already accepted) are provided, keeping it just short of a 5.

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