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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It offers only caveats ('educational information only', 'not a clinical assessment') but does not describe what the tool does with the seven inputs, whether it produces a score, how results are presented, or any side effects. The actual behavior of 'run' remains opaque.

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 description is only two sentences and every clause earns its place: it states the tool's purpose, frames it as educational, and includes a necessary non-clinical disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

The schema and output schema cover the mechanical details of parameters and results, and the description provides the essential non-clinical framing. However, it lacks any guidance on how to interpret the inputs or what happens when the tool is invoked, leaving an agent to infer the tool's core behavior.

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?

The input schema already describes all seven parameters with clear names and 1-5 value meanings, so the description need not repeat them. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, but this is acceptable given the 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a structured reflection exercise on hope and resilience, with a specific verb ('run') and resource (Anchored Hope Index). It distinguishes the tool from the sibling by framing it as non-clinical and educational, though it could more explicitly state that it calculates a score or index.

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 description implies the tool is appropriate for educational, non-clinical reflection on hope and resilience, and explicitly cautions against using it as clinical assessment or medical advice. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over get_framework_metadata or describe any prerequisites or contexts where it should not be used.

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