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 usefully adds that this is a pre-judgment intake that returns a session plan. However, 'records consent' sits in slight tension with readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not clarify whether consent is merely captured in the returned plan or persisted.

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 sentences, with the multi-step workflow front-loaded and the sequencing condition placed last. Every clause maps to a real capability; the first sentence is dense but not padded. Slightly run-on, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. But with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no schema descriptions, the description omits meaningful detail on the enum-backed inputs (topic, birthTimeSource) and on how lifeEvents/consent should be shaped, leaving gaps 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the explanatory burden. It conceptually maps to several inputs (question, birth-time source/accuracy via 'birth-time fitness', lifeEvents via 'dated life history', consent), but leaves topic, expectations, and traditionPreference entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names the concrete workflow actions (refines the question, checks birth-time fitness, collects dated life history, records consent, returns the session plan) and frames it as the intake step that precedes chart judgment. It is clearly distinct from analysis siblings like analyze_chart_topic, though it does not name a specific sibling it should not be confused with.

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 final sentence gives an explicit usage condition: 'Run this before chart judgment for a new person.' That is a clear when-to-use trigger tied to a new subject. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when-not-to-use (e.g., returning users), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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