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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the card auto-returns at the until moment, the lead's timeline reflects the return time, and only open cards qualify. It does not describe what happens to a card that is already set aside or error behavior.

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 content is compact but the key action is buried behind the poetic opener 'Later, as Flow has it', so it is not front-loaded. The single run-on sentence mixes effect, timing, and precondition, making it harder to parse than necessary.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers precondition, timing resolution, and return behavior adequately. It could still state whether an already-set-aside card errors, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: the 09:00 office-clock resolution for tomorrow/next_week and the 'after today' constraint on dates. This is meaningful value beyond the schema's plain enumeration.

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 conveys the specific action and its effect: the card leaves the open-card list until a given day and returns automatically, with the lead's timeline recording when. This is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like bring_a_card_back and stop_a_card, though no sibling is named explicitly and the opening 'Later, as Flow has it' phrasing obscures rather than states the operation.

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 precondition 'Only an open card' is stated, which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use against alternatives such as stop_a_card or bring_a_card_back; the agent must infer the boundary from context.

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