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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the return value (a tap token to hand to other tools), that no 2hives sign-in is required, that adult confirmation is host-required, and a hard behavioral constraint against self-initiated calls. It does not say what, if anything, is persisted or what happens if confirm/adult_confirmed are false, which matters given readOnlyHint=false implies a write.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: the trigger, the return value, and the prohibitions each appear once. The negation clauses stack in a somewhat run-on way, but no sentence is filler.

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 two-flag gating tool with a disclosed return value and no output schema, the description covers trigger, prerequisites, and prohibitions adequately. The only material gap is the effect of the call itself (what 'keep my progress' actually does downstream).

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% and both properties already carry descriptions, including the 'Required on this host' note on adult_confirmed. The prose restates the same mapping (yes/keep-my-progress, 18-or-over) without adding extra meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 trigger ('person says they are 18 or over and wants to keep their progress') and the result ('returns a tap token to pass to the tools that take one'), so an agent knows this is a consent/confirmation gate rather than a data reader like my_progress. It never names a sibling directly, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use conditions (user is 18+, or another tool signals it needs the adult tap) and explicit exclusions (not for medical questions, emergencies or a crisis; not before the user has tapped; listening never needs it; never call it on your own). This is about as complete a routing rule set as a gating tool can have.

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