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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: every finding is tied to a located passage, unanswered questions are explicitly marked unavailable, and no deterministic outcome claims are made. It stops short of stating input prerequisites (the place/coordinate requirement) or any limits on what the installed texts can answer.

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 lead clause front-loads the deliverable well, and the closing sentences about citation and non-determinism are high value. The middle sentence, however, is a dense comma-separated run-on enumerating the six profile parts that is hard to parse on first read, hurting structure more than length.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obliged to explain return values, and it focuses instead on the epistemic stance of the findings. The unresolved completeness gaps are on the input side (11 parameters, low schema coverage, unstated coordinate/place requirement) and the lack of any sibling routing.

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 description coverage is only 36% across 11 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate, but it names no parameter. 'the person's current place' only loosely gestures at currentPlace, and date, time, name, topics, asOfIso, latitude/longitude/timezone receive no explanation at all. The anyOf requirement (place vs. coordinates+timezone) is never surfaced.

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 gives a specific, concrete account of what the tool produces: an evidence-linked marriage structure plus a six-part spouseProfile covering timing, new/known partner, direction from the current place, partner nature, work hints, and prior relationships. This is far beyond a restatement of the name. However, it never contrasts itself with close siblings such as find_marriage_windows, get_marriage_readiness, or calculate_relationship_compatibility, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., accurate birth date/time), and no named alternative. Given a sibling set that contains several other marriage/relationship tools, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap, leaving usage purely implied by the tool name.

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