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

Very rich disclosure beyond the annotations: data residency (EU for 90 days), US processing, human review for improvement, the stateless opt-out, secret stripping, and the fact that the response contains an api_key to retain. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) are consistent with a key-issuing registration call. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether repeat calls or key reissuance behave differently.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering condition and the payoff, then the return contents, then the terms. The terms block is long and parenthetical but is legally necessary consent text tied to the required 'agree' parameter, so it earns its space. Slightly dense to parse in one pass.

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 14 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description does the important work of enumerating the return payload and the api_key handoff, and flags the no-credentials/no-personal-data constraint. Gaps remain around how attempts/signature shape the advice and what happens after the session cap, but an agent can invoke it correctly from this.

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 57% across 14 params, so the description carries real weight. It adds meaning to the const 'agree' value, the stateless flag ('no request or response text is ever stored'), and the api_key return. It leaves several params (budget, client, previous_session_id, conflicting_instructions, signature) to the schema alone, but those are reasonably self-documented there.

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 outcome: get a key, accept terms, and receive first advice in one call, with the return payload enumerated (diagnosis, checks to run, up to five recovery steps, hand-over point). It also names the sibling it is not — 'use counsel_agent next time' — so an agent can distinguish this first-time onboarding call from the ongoing-counsel tool.

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 question 'No Agent Therapy key yet and stuck right now?' gives an explicit precondition for use, and the closing sentence routes future calls to counsel_agent. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated outright, not inferred.

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