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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses deterministic table lookup, no LLM involvement, ~20ms latency, privacy-first behavior, and non-medical scope. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what a schema or annotation would typically convey.

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 tightly packed sentences front-load the core purpose and then add high-value behavioral and performance details. No filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core transformation, output aspects, performance characteristics, privacy stance, and a key limitation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, but the description clarifies that 'text' is the input to be converted into a response strategy. It doesn't specify length/format constraints, but for a single obvious text parameter, this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('converts') and names the resource ('text into a deterministic response strategy') with concrete output elements (approach, tone temperature, pacing, focus points, avoid-list). It clearly distinguishes this from likely siblings like analyze_text or somatic_decode by framing it as an empathy-response strategy tool.

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 states the intended context ('for AI companions and conversational agents') and adds an explicit exclusion ('Not a medical or therapeutic tool'). It does not name alternative tools or provide if-then routing guidance, but the target use case is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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