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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, detailing the full return structure: cosmic_card_a/b, connections, overall_score, temporal_context, and ordering semantics (spread_pos sort order). It also explains aliases like 'Cosmic card = birth = life = sun' and the payload_scope in temporal_context. No contradictions with the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations.

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 front-loaded with usage, exclusions, and requirements before diving into output details. It is dense and well-organized, but the single continuous block of text with heavy semicolon use makes it less scannable than it could be.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: it lists all major fields, nested structures, cultural name variants, and temporal_context bands. The agent has enough information to invoke the tool and interpret complex results.

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 fully describes both parameters with format, Person A/B semantics, and the 'not a roster' clarification, so the description adds little new parameter-level information beyond restating that both are required. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's exact purpose: comparing exactly two people by Gregorian date. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming get_date for single-date queries and get_name for name-based queries.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, including which sibling tool to use instead for one-date or name scenarios. It also clarifies the requirement for both date_a and date_b parameters.

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