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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a modest but real behavioral trait — that output is 'evidence-linked' and makes no deterministic outcome claims — which is beyond the annotations, though it is not elaborated (no mention of evidence format, sources, or limitations).

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?

It is a single fragment rather than an informative sentence; brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially only one clause.

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 return values need not be described. However, for a 10-parameter tool with low schema coverage, the description omits input requirements, the place/coordinates branch, and usage context, leaving it inadequate to invoke the tool confidently.

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 30% across 10 parameters, and the description adds nothing about any parameter. Required fields (name, date, time) and the coordinate-vs-place branching are left for the schema alone, leaving a substantial gap the description does not compensate for.

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 essentially restates the tool name/title ('analyze marriage structure') with a qualifier tacked on. It does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as analyze_career_structure, find_marriage_windows, or get_marriage_readiness, so an agent cannot tell which marriage-related tool to pick.

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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. The phrase 'without deterministic outcome claims' faintly implies this is an evidence-based analysis rather than a prediction, but it gives no actionable routing guidance.

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