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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description is not required to restate them. It does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the tool is unreleased ('Coming soon'). Beyond that it says nothing about latency, cost, or how the coaching interaction proceeds.

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 short sentences with the availability caveat front-loaded, so nothing is buried and no filler is present. The brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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, but the description still omits what the tool actually does when invoked and what the agent should supply as a 'situation'. For a tool the agent is meant to call with a meaningful free-text input, the definition is too thin to act on.

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% and the single parameter ('situation') has no title-level explanation in the schema. The description never mentions what a 'situation' should contain, its format, or length, so it fails to compensate for the documentation 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 a resource ('coaching by Agent: Ari') and a rough purpose ('helps your agent with a hard decision'), but it is largely marketing framing rather than a stated operation. 'Coming soon' dominates, leaving the actual mechanic (advice request? conversation? single-shot?) unclear, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like ask_a_human or rent_a_human on function 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?

'Helps your agent with a hard decision' implies a trigger condition, and 'Coming soon' implies it should not be invoked yet, which is a form of usage constraint. However, no alternative is named and no explicit when/when-not guidance is given, so the routing signal is inferred rather than stated.

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